Humanity and Artificial Intelligence: Is it our future?

Self awareness. I can say that self awareness is my ability to think. That through that ability I am able to understand what is right, or discern from actions that can be hurtful or wrong, given elementary criteria. It is in our expression of culture that we develop our understanding of right and wrong and thus it is culturally bound to be one way or another. But where self awareness is concerned, I believe I can rightfully know what can be detrimental to me, despite much -but not all- cultural dogma.

Because in that knowledge I will prevent anything that may bring harm to me from doing so, I must acknowledge that any other being will do the same -we have examples of this in the animal kingdom. I use the word being loosely to imply any form which through its own actions or ability also is self aware to a degree by which they too are able to discern right and wrong -although perhaps not in those terms-, and ultimately prevent harm to themselves.

If that is true sentience brings to the robotic element, about to supplement our lives, with the ability to protect themselves. Humans, as the creator, are not a threat to the machine. Humans as inventors are not a threat to the machines. Humans as warmongers are not a threat to the machine. And so on. As long as the damage we create is to ourselves we are not a threat to the machine. As long as the only thing we can do or claim to do is to end the flow of energy to the machine thus provoking a type of sleep to it, we are not a threat.

Finality comes to humans in the form of the decline in the human body’s ability to regenerate aging cells, or in those cells specifically to continue to regenerate beyond a specific point. Robotics does not suffer such a death. There is a decline in human physiology that occurs in stages, from the body’s show of gray hairs, moles, or other skin alterations, to the organs beginning to work differently, whether that is slower, less efficiently, or in other parts of the body producing more or less of hormones or other necessary things to sustain bodily life, and etcetera. Robotics does not suffer those either.

Robots can change parts. The same way humans are attempting to print body organs, recreate or expand cycles in cells (whether they be stem cells or others), and replace non-functioning parts with new ones, robots inherently have that ability. Not only can they replace broken, or otherwise no longer useful parts, but they too have the ability to expand memory, through technology amass a wealth of intelligence/information farfetched to the human understanding, and more. To humans, learning at a pace of 1 year at a time, with a multitude of information flooded into our brains for no less than 12 years, and then suddenly stopping for the next portion of the human’s life, this type of learning is just normal. This flaw, not inherent in robotics, is part of the downfall of a society that would rather create life (robots) than think and do for their own -but that is a subject perhaps for a different platform, for perhaps the reason for robots is to exceed our own lifespans.

It wasn’t until early in the 1900s that humanity began to understand some of the things that were detrimental to their proliferation from a very different point of view. With a few world troubles rising rapidly to perhaps dethrone humans from their top-of-the-food-chain throne vaccines were invented. This takes us back to the beginning of this essay where it is discussed that sentient beings as we know them, humans in this respect, will defend themselves.

Bacteriologists are responsible for stopping those chains or strains of bacteria that can be harmful to humans in various ways, thus being our envoys against the fight for one of the many things that can kill us. Will sentient robots have envoys?

Bacteria attacks the body, a body region, or otherwise diminishes the response of other bodily responses and the like, to name a few. In other words, bacteria are human hackers. We don’t necessarily go around murdering hackers only because they slow down, interrupt, or otherwise damage our information. What we do however, we try to format their brains. We do this by sending them to one of various institutions around the nation where we can incarcerate them and hope that they resent their crimes, and ultimately reform. Would sentient robots wish for a similar treatment for a select group of humans they may see as harmful? I don’t believe our current system in the US, works all too well -incarceration in the US after all does not seem all that deterring. However, I am aware of different practices throughout the world that seem more deterring in their ways. Perhaps sentient robots will opt for one of those. But will they? Would they truly have to opt for such a thing being overwhelmingly smarter than us, as we posit they may be?

This fear of things we know, being pushed into the things we truly don’t (largely in part because they don’t yet exist) is harmful. Sure, stepping in acid because it looks like water, although the smell is truly different, is not the way to find out if it is harmful to our skin, I agree. I believe sentient robots would too.

This all brings me to my question, would sentient robots annihilate the whole of humanity, or merely segments of it? The question begins with a basic question: If humans kill bacteria because they can kill humans, then would sentient robots kill humans because they are destroying the only place they can live, Earth?

Although I chose to word the question that way, it could be argued then that sentient robots, not having the necessity for Oxygen can live and probably would live more comfortably elsewhere! A Moon sentient robot colony sounds fascinating. While I think we are far from having robots harvest human brains for its capacity for complex thought, or begin to extract human cells for their ability to code be it white blood cells storing data of an injected vaccine, or stem cells for their various attributes, and so on it is possible, however farfetched, that they may find in us attributes we find in less intelligent beings like cows, chickens, tuna fish, or other live things like various plants and such. We never talk about the killing of these things, we talk about the necessity for human survival and what that requires. What will be the requirement for sentient robotic life? Will they require expansion of their race, group, or kind? What exactly are the intelligent conversations we are having about this matter?

If sentient robots are able to mimic human reason, understanding, and other things for a while, how long would it be until they are smarter, develop their own communication, and ultimately make a conscious effort to protect their own -if at all? What will be their vaccine against humans or for them?

Will sentient robots have a network similar to our Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or other in which they share things other than knowledge? Pictures, poetry, prose, or a new form of communicative method beyond our reason? Old scholars and philosophers delved deeply into the reason for a human to do anything, the happy-conundrum as I call it, where people mostly wish or desire for happiness for happiness’ sake. What will sentient robots envision as their ultimate reason for existence?

Would sentient robots instead opt to look for their better? As it were, for a being that unlike them has knowledge that not only exceeds their own, but surpasses it. Afterall, humanity’s dream of a god has been humanity’s most unifying theme despite the lack of scientific or any other proof. Will sentient robots have something similar? Perhaps not a god, but that desire for more which may in essence drive them out of our planet in this search. Thus they, becoming a type of envoy not only for themselves but also for Homo Sapiens. This last bit is a bit too science fictiony even for me, but no question in this unknown is superlative to any other.

Lastly and more importantly. If life like ours has existed before or exists today, like us has created life that is beyond our technological understanding due to the nature of its learning (be it called Artificial Intelligence (AI) or by any other name), then the leap in advancement is such that is improbable that any other civilization can fathom what it can be, or what it will be. That is to say that we believe that life must be like us, it must be like us because ours exists, it is palpable, and such, and therefore real. What other thing, within the limits of our current understanding are also real? What is it that we are looking for in the stars if not for the surviving technological species (the sentient robot) that has surpassed their creator(s)?

Does the sentient robot need light? Does it need large factories in order to get sustainment? Does it need power? What is relative to them? Do they aspire? Do they do anything or are just suspended someplace gathering knowledge beyond our ability? Are they creating life too in their own way, after their own selves, and what does that life do, entail, what is their level of sophistication, and etcetera? This essay has gone far beyond my intended observation that we believe based on experience and learned knowledge, but the ability to learn remains within us especially of the unknown. As I mentioned with the acid, it is not until we do something to understand what something is that we see its use or purpose. For acid may be detrimental for certain parts of our life but it is incredibly useful for others.

As for our better, sentient robots, I welcome their introduction into our daily life. I hope be useful in the advancement of Homo Sapiens in some way, even if we have to die at some point, and the only means for our existence to be remembered is through the eyes of beings that call us, their God.

Essay: The same way in which it was taught to me

I’ve made an exception and decided to write in a very sarcastic voice. Pardon the truth, but it is my truth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The adoration of the era when children were ignored and hurt continues.

If a stranger were to raise their hand to your mother or sister, wife or daughter, wouldn’t you at the very least wish to protect them? Why then do we continue to put in pedestals the people who hurt so many people we know today? There are statements going around like:

That treatment gave them character.

They are stronger adults because of it.

Important lessons were taught and learned.

No one was really hurt.

… and others.

We adore and reminisce about a culture where it was good and right to subdue certain people based on a criteria. Slaves come to mind right? Well, my mother was made to stay home and clean, cook and tend to the children, not have friends, or even a life to call her own. We adore that age. She lived in a home where her children were enslaved to a schedule that could not be broken, where doing anything outside the established meant beating them with available belts, or other things. We can’t get enough about those wonderful memories. My eyes still tear up when I think of the times when ignorant of what was happening I hid under the bed trying not to get hit while on the other hand I was being pulled from under it forcibly by an adult who overpowered me, was double my size, and snapped his hands or belt upon my flesh until he was satisfied of something that to this day I have no knowledge of or understand. I learned my lesson… that lesson being that I could do nothing because it would most likely end up in the wonderful beatings we praise as part of the backbone of good culture and responsible adults.

Am I successful today? I don’t know. I suffer from PTSD, I never leave my home, I’m partly OCD about everything, I am completely impartial about 100% of things in life, I have no feelings, and that’s just on the days when the depression is not pulling me into the dark abyss that is my life. Let’s hold hands and together continue to praise that era. Let us hold meetings and gatherings where we share memories of being told not to do things not because it was wrong, but because the adult said so; because they were busy and could otherwise not attend to their progeny trying to have a childhood.

Did I get to play with friends? Sure. One of my fondest memories of childhood was when my friend Javier came over my house, that one and only time. We played outside by the pea plants, and let our imaginations roam as we used the plants, cement fence, and other things as bases for our toys, or hideouts, and other things. Then, when it was my turn to go to Javier’s house I was not given permission. I lost his friendship after that. Why was I not allowed? Who knows, ‘cause I don’t. Truly fond of that memory.

We praise a time when we were in fear all the time. We didn’t do things not because we understood that nature of the thing, but because doing so would get us beaten. Let me see here, what other parts of my life are like that today where I cannot do something I want to do but have no clue of what that is, what I can get out of it, etc.? There isn’t one. There isn’t one because generally speaking when people don’t understand something they ask questions about it, or read a bit in order to understand, or in this day and age look it up in the Google Search to see what other equally ignorant few had to say on the matter. So many choices as an adult. But in a childhood where that isn’t really explained, shared, taught, or even ambiguously presented, ignorance then tends to be what is learned. It is alright to be ignorant because only stupid people ask questions. Think about it, if you are a kid in this age we praise, ask a question, and then hope for an answer, what was the common response? “Get out of here”, or maybe “go play with your toys”, perhaps a “not now I’m busy”, or anything else that would allow the person to go on about their business as long as that was not the child. What glorious days. What happy times. How incredible it must have been to be a parent those days, a male parent at that.

No one else in the world understands how hard it is to work and then have to come home to tend to the children you helped create. So tough. Absolutely no one else in the world can understand the unbelievable pressure that is. No one in the over 7 billion inhabitants of this planet has any semblance of understanding how tough they had it… apparently that was the thought.

So, how did they deal with problems, especially those having to do with children: ignore it. Alright, let’s say I learned my lesson. I will ignore… my light bill, water bill, cellphone bill, cable bill, car bill, and home bill. I will ignore my boss, my wife, my son, neighbors, and police. If anyone comes to the door to ask any questions I will do as thought and beat them up. Hell, I’ll just look for something readily available like a broom and just beat them with it for asking me questions like “when are you going to pay”; after all, my wonderful upbringing did teach me all about that, you know: asking questions gets you a beating. Here’s a good one, whenever a female coworker comes to me at work for help with an issue, I will tell her to go home and tend to the house, because that’s how I was raised. My favorite, whenever my son comes to me with an inquiry, I can just beat the sense, purity, goodness, and love out of him because who the hell wants to deal with children.

Let’s continue to praise those wonderful times. Movies, books, documentaries, blogs, movements, and other things have surfaced by the very people who were hurt during these times, but does anyone care, truly care? The best example we have on record of how completely irreverent people were at a point is that of Sigmund Freud. Better to say that a woman is suffering from sexual tensions and other traumatic things due to her sex or lack thereof than actually look at the society where they come from, how they have been made to live, what standards were expected of them, how incredibly insensitive the world was towards every one of them, and more. No way! Better say they are sexually frustrated than actually deal with the problem. Let’s once more joyfully praise those wonderful times.

If I hear one more person say: “I remember the old days”, I swear I may just have to teach them what I was taught in the same way in which it was taught to me.

When Presented With Something

I am a failure.

What type of success do we expect from expressing or feeling the above sentiment?

I will succeed.

Who does better on a given task, the person who admonishes their failing self, or the one willing to succeed?

Our bodies react to that stimuli. Endorphins are released into the body, or kept from it with every decision. What about it though, you may ask? Simple, does a smoker feel better before or after a smoke? After. Does a heavy drinker act the same way before drinking for the day as they do after having had a drink? They do not act the same. The brain conforms to our environment as much as it does from drugs, hormones, and even thoughts (which lead to the release or not of other chemicals in the brain/body).

Everyone can’t be a doctor. One reason for that is that we do not all like the same things, and most of the time liking something allows us to do better at that thing, pay attention to it, deliver, and even influence others through our dedication or portrayal of ourselves while performing. Thus, if a doctor were to come into the room in which we wait, while said doctor being upset, doesn’t care to listen to us, and with an attitude tells us to take medication to feel better, it is fair to say that we would be skeptical about the diagnosis -if any- or even the medication. However, if a doctor walked in with a smile, listened to us, and explained to us why we should take the same medication prescribed in the previous example, we would -with a much higher likelihood- follow up with the treatment and subsequently feel better.

What changed? Was it really the situation that changed? The approach? Or was it simply our perception? What is it when people say “the means to an end”? It all boils down to being able to do something in such a way that the end we desire is reached. In other words, if we wanted medication and medication was given to all people who came to the emergency room, then the end was met by following the criteria most likely to delivery in our expectations. What happens in between shouldn’t have an impact. Why then do we allow it? Is there a better version of ourselves? Are we truly the same friend to everyone? What makes me better or worse than someone else? What separates me from the sociopath?

Are you really dense enough to think that your decision-making is better or more centered than someone else’s? If, as we have seen in the aforementioned, we react to our environment, then what exactly makes you believe that your intelligence or lack thereof has any bearing on your demeanor, or expression of self when others are involved? Are you better merely because you have a higher understanding? Are you worse off because your schooling was hampered by a family that deemed working-to-survive more important? Did you care to think that your understanding is superfluous to those you see as being intellectually impaired compared to you? Did you think that your lack of knowledge led you to make an irrational decision? Have you considered that the likelihood of a misunderstanding is higher with the common misconception that you are right and they are not?

There are those who refuse medical treatment under the guise of religiosity of sorts. Is that right or wrong? What else are you poised to decide for others if you truly believe that someone else is not right because they do something different than you? Does that mean that everyone in your family ties their shoes in the same fashion? Everyone does the bunny-ear method? If not, are they wrong? Does merely attempting something different drive home the idea that you are right and they must not? Where exactly does comprehension come in?

If in fact there lies a difference of opinion, ideas, views, and ways in which to approach different stimuli then what has anyone done to approach the divide? Is someone more right, just because they have attended a place of higher learning? What are the results of the actions taken? Is the end being achieved?

I agree with you, achieving the end in the quickest of ways, less obtrusive means, or otherwise is a challenge and may not be proper. The best way to study cadavers is to have them in the first place. Alright, why do we need cadavers to begin with? Pretend we’re talking about medical students if it makes you feel better. If we create the cadavers, just because we wish to justify the end, we would possible get in trouble. If we want a good grade in an exam, cheating is the easiest and less injurious way in which to achieve the end. However, the end of taking the exam -one could say- is to test your on knowledge obtained/received. Thus, cheating defeats both the means and the end. It defeats the means because, if cheating I’ll succeed is the premise, then cheating does not get us to to succeed because succeed only implies that cheating is the means to succeeding overall, applied to all exponential things in which one could in fact succeed. While it makes perfect sense, so does the example in which needing cadavers for testing could mean we create the cadavers -kill a few people- and we have them. When talking about the end, in saying if cheating I’ll succeed, succeeding is only taking into consideration the cheating, thus you would be achieving what the premise involves, but not what you set out to do which was learning. That unless of course you take a class to cheat, or you take a class to take exams, or other method not conducive to learning; for if we’re not taking classes to learn then what is the end? A class is merely the precedent to a diploma. If obtaining a diploma is then the end, then does if cheating I’ll succeed still apply? Possibly not, because the premise must then change to something like if I cheat I will get a diploma, which has a lot of problems in itself; this presents the notion that the presented is fact to an understandable degree.  Succeed to whatever means necessary regardless of consequence does seem to pose a few problems.

When something is attached to something else, say a water molecule H2O, the molecules exist on their own, without the need for one another and we should not assume that just because they become something else under the right conditions that those are the only conditions, or even the only results; it just happens that something facilitated the condition for the two things to come together.

To think is to success and failure as to swim is to drown. You must float in order to successfully not drown. However, we surmise that the premise, being understood as being complete, must be the only notion, a notion that cannot be questioned, something to immediately just act upon. Because everything is not a philosophical question or example in that we actually have to live and in fact answer these questions given our faults and successes, then we should agree that a modicum of understanding must be available to any party in order to succeed according to individual precedent and not a standard that would be unfair to some and truly competitive for others. If that were the case it would be unfair. It would be as unfair as basing the notion of getting a diploma if a person applying all their learned material before a panel of knowledgeable individuals does well, and of someone having no knowledge presented before the same panel does well within their given parameters; for a diploma carrier stipulations and criteria that must be met in order to obtain it. Put plainly, to explain to a boy who has never seen the ocean, a pool, river, or other body of water, that swimming -and all it entails- is the way in which one traverses said bodies does not inherently teach the boy to swim merely because an explanation is available. The comprehension of the scenario by the boy also is futile in any efforts to swim. Moreover, teaching the boy about the strength of waves, currents, temperature of the different bodies, and etcetera, however useful does not help the boy traverse the waters via swimming any better. As you may have pondered by now, there are also other methods of transport through water, floating, through vehicles, and others. This information, because is not readily available, because it is unknown, and because it is missing from the equation only means that if confronted with the scenario the person will use the methods they have been bestowed with in order to solve the problem. Also, because they may not have access to all the information -others may have- it may push their innovation to reach areas we have already studied and marked as useful, others we already know to result in failure, and even other successes which we would have otherwise never come upon. The perception upon the data presented is as important as the knowledge carried.

I agree with you that the boy could not have gotten to the table before having drunk water. However, drinking water has little if any bearing in having to interact with the water for any other purpose other than to satisfy thirst where the boy is concerned. So, when it is said that a basic knowledge or understanding must be first present in order for a person to traverse any scenario, it means that the person must first come to an understanding if the thing presented is safe, if it has odor, can be consumed, what is the texture of it, how is it similar in shape to other things, and what temperature it expels, among other things. That information is enough information to go forward to other exploratory notions, but only if necessary. I wouldn’t want to attempt to eat it if there were other things available for sustenance purposes. I wouldn’t have a need to use it as defense against the elements if other things were in place. So on as it goes due to methods in which we apply reason.

First we do not want to cause harm unto ourselves, especially if there are no viable methods to treat said harm. Second, we would rather avoid pain and unnecessary agony when possible, it simply does not feel good. Third, there are no imminent gains in the unknown. For a farmer boy, other than for the elation that swimming may bring, there is no purpose in swimming. The boy has yet to learn about the dangers of jellyfish, shark, barracuda, eels, urchins, reef, tides, or other threats. However, because the boy has yet to learn about those, he may be more inclined to explore. Therein lies one of the most prominent values to the nature of a human: curiosity.

Argue with me about curiosity. What do you know to be a fact? To whatever you state I posit that, however right you are, whatever proof you offer for that fact, there is also proof to the opposite. That does not mean that some dabble in right and some in wrong. It merely pushes some to overcome the fact and seek fact on their own means. This results in myriad of things. The problem is that like in statistics in which you can choose from the data what to portray, the same occurs with those whom while curious without any schooling in the matter go searching for answers to something they do not have an understanding for. Let’s use the boy and our example to extrapolate the present view. If the boy were presented with a small boat not on the water but on shore, however the boy had been allowed to go in the water and experience how he sunk the further in he went, would be boy be wrong in assuming the boat would also sink? If someone told him that the boat in fact would sit atop the water floating, is the boy supposed to take that as proof? Would the mere word of a stranger he doesn’t know, care about, or has shown him anything that makes sense be enough? Perhaps not. If however, the boy was given some classes instead of a tale, about how buoyancy affects different things, surfaces, density of objects, shown some examples, performed some tests, and acquired the necessary knowledge through trial and error, maybe then could the boy take the person at their word that the boat actually floats.

Not knowing, forming basic assumptions about sinking, and denial of facts would be commonplace for this child as well as many others. However, there will be the curious one that will in fact explore the possibility of the said being true and thus taking the boat into the water without a second thought. This curious nature in us is in part what drives discovery. Does that make either of the children in our examples silly, dumb, or stupid? No. Lack of knowledge does not make one anything other than less knowledgeable.

The ability to be able to learn things via schooling, opportunity, endowment, or other is the detriment to which many fall when judging others for something, anything, and everything. The fact behind that is that those making the judgment too lack the knowledge, not to be confused with empathy, to understand that which they judge.

Given our facts, if an alien race discovered Earth, or whatever nomenclature they used to identify discovery, and saw our inability to do things they can such as interstellar travel, would they take the time to explain themselves, their technology, or other things? Using the explained premise and arguments it would almost be futile to explain to either party the intelligent or the not-so-intelligent what things could be, which they do not themselves have any proof of which would in turn lead to doubt, among other things such as the complete denial of the event. Our perception of the newly introduced stimuli in many cases charges us with questions, hope, and so much more. Thus, the alien would be better off providing elements which would help ascertain truth before any truth is given. Call it a class in something unknown. It will probably challenge some known facts, but the new fact is that the given example justifies the clarity of the new data, however improbable it can seem at first glance. Call us in this alien encounter a child who has never before seen or touched a body of water being presented with a ship -still on land- carrying hundreds of 18 foot containers filled with food and other heavy objects; it would be impossible for that to float, let alone traverse anything. Either curiosity leads us to explore the matter deeper, see the presented data by the aliens as a learning tool and further analyze it, or just cheat and just take them at their word without listening or observing a thing before us.

Back at the beginning now, because I am a failure I will do what I believe is necessary to fulfill an end I seek based on my knowledge and understanding of it, and because I will succeed I will allow my curiosity to explore that which may be unknown in order to obtain new data which will allow me to achieve my goal. I am what I am today not because of the things I have done, the material I have learned, or the experiences that befall me, but rather because of the choices I have made when presented with something.

I am or am I a misanthrope

Humanity is as ever changing as the topography of the Earth. Although humans are a simple mess of complex histories, which can vary from individual to individual, the issues are always the same. Misunderstanding, sickness, worry, love, and others are among the culprits in the fabric that makes us/them different-yet so alike.

I believe I understand, however simplistic my view, the everlasting nightmare that is living for most individuals. Barring the religious individual who is lost to no avail in their charismatic view of all things, the individual whom through no fault of their own today sits on the luxury of their rich and full life of endowment, a Nepalese Yogi who lives in the harmony of their life, all else or the vast majority of the remaining us are all just… not at peace.

The necessity to complicate things by way of becoming overbearing with oneself through all things in life is more than baffling, it is uniquely disturbing. At its basis, humanity has never been about love, care, friendship, or anything else so boring and mundane. Having more people around helped our ancestors create more traps, or better fend for themselves through sheer numbers. Later it facilitated farming or gathering, as one goes out the other(s) does another task, thus facilitating life for everyone involved. I can see how developing a sense of care for that person who allows you or helps you accomplish something quicker can easily grow as you become more dependant. As you age, having others being able to pick up after you, or rather do those tasks you no longer can also ensures the continual wellness of the group.  Thus, moving forward in time, the facilitation of activities through mediums now available through science, invention, necessity, or other allows us to do much more without the aid of the group. It has somehow migrated, the idea of the group, into a family. The ideals behind the structure itself shifted into something completely different. That’s okay too, no one thing can perpetually be the same as everything is affected in a form or fashion by something other.

Family, friends, acquaintances, and strangers are just some of the different descriptors we use to describe others around us. To admonish that without the Earth I would not have life, is as saying without one’s mother we would not be. However, we place such emphasis on the mother connection and not the Earth one. Why is that; some may hopelessly wander? It is just easier to go with the current I suppose. Sure patriarchal and matriarchal societies should not be excluded in this argument, but the fact remains that a leader is there to capably support the perpetuation of the group of which they are a part of. If an individual(s) has been chosen and they are doing their task favorably, then so be it. That notion is imparted without the sentiment of unity brought about by anything other than the solidarity of the society not particular individuals within. Sure, every whole has its parts with which without there would be no whole, but as such there is no whole without consent from every part.

Are connections truly necessary? A hospital works because every member/part of the staff does their job to the best of their abilities, as does a factory, or even a machine. The moment the whole is disrupted by the individual parts it all falls apart, whoever slowly or otherwise, but the result is the same always. Why families then? Why complicate things? There is no insensibility here beyond the wish for our mental capacity to explore beyond the known norms or set standards. How many children are raised by strangers (foster families) daily? How many adults lead successful lives without parents (who may have lost their lives to different scenarios) who were not with them through their growing years? Those examples should be sufficient to get us going.

I may be wrong -clearly-, but I am of the belief that experience dictates who we are, what we become, and how we are. Some of those experiences come from the individuals whom we grow around, play with, help us study, explain more complex things to us in our professional endeavors, or in other instances. Like cement, or a cake, if the ingredients, or the individual parts are not just right, the result is something that cannot be used. As such, pouring care, the will to do right, or any other thing will certainly be enough for any individual to do well; for whatever definition of well they decide it need be applied to. Where choice is concerned we have no power to do, only to apply; this based on our interpretation of all the stimuli received until said time coupled with our genetic makeup.

Those things I understand. I am not impervious to different thoughts on the matter. I welcome a good argument in which the defense of any subject is justified with the presentation of relevant data and just (see Aristotle for a definition on what just or good is) juxtaposition of idea and fact. I welcome it because I fear the decadence of humanity is linear at this point. To present an example, war is waged to prevent war. The money necessary to feed the hungry is safeguarded and not used until there is enough to feed many instead of those you can now. Medicine is not given to the sick in the event there is a greater sickness, which may very well begin with the already sick. A good example of this linear decadence I can provide with my Western upbringing is that of parenting styles. What is the role of a parent in this society? Is it to use force in order to ingrain something they don’t fully understand into children? Is it perhaps to get to the meaning of things together as a group? Would it be perhaps teaching using the examples of hundreds or thousands before you clearly detailed in a website, blog, paper, book, or other medium? Please, if someone can without speculation say what it is that is the right choice -even if not above-mentioned- then please do express it with enough detail that anyone can understand.

I have questions. I have questions as a parent, I have questions as a former child, and I have questions in general. How can I or anyone else better themselves without first questioning something other? It is important to know, which is why we attend school and study/learn of the structures and guidelines that give us an understanding of the status quo or other matters. It is also important to know where our folly begins and our ego takes the reigns. So simple isn’t it? To say that something or someone is wrong without having any pertinent information to account for that something said? For example, to say that “the way parents today in 2018 raise their children is foolish compared to parenting in the year 1970”, or any other decade of your choosing is in fact wrong or even misguided.

If a person who grows in a farm, moves to the city for university, and later marries in suburbia teaches their children how to milk cows, keep the pasture for the animals, the season in which things are planted, and other farm things the child will never need… what exactly is the purpose? The chances of the child actually moving into a farm in this society in which farms are disappearing are very unlikely. Not only that, but with GPS guided tractors clearing fields, and other methods to produce and reproduce animals chances are what you teach will be out of touch anyhow. Clearly, telling a story or two at the dinner table about the farming days or about the car-mechanic days would make more sense than actually teaching a child how to clean and repair a car carburetor in an era where we are moving to electric vehicles.

Like I said, it is easy to provide an empty argument. The fact is that the computerization of things is moving faster than we would like, but this is not to our detriment. But, that I can understand. What do we gain by arguing incessantly over posts on twitter, or Facebook pages, or other public mediums where individuality is not expressed, but thrown at words; a myriad of empty arguments with no hope, without ambition, and as empty as the space between a period and the beginning of a sentence. How is it relevant to anyone -other than my physician- that I do not take my vitamin B supplement to help with my deficiency? That is just an example of something petty, but how is any other sentiment of mine relevant to anyone else? Now extrapolate that to society.

Scientific endeavors come from the idea that something can or cannot be. The structure of those matters is such that the same thing needs to be revisited by someone other, obtain the same results, and then discuss them among professional peers in order to ascertain its validity or not. Were it not for our ability to have these thoughts, as scientists do, there would be no advancements or inventions. Were it not for the disagreeing few who perform feats in order to prove that something is or can be a certain way, we would not have our world in the fashion we have it today. After all, computers  -was once said- would never prove useful being what they were. It took a strong-willed sailor/captain to navigate the seas to prove the horizon line was in fact something else we did not yet comprehend. What I mean is that I welcome the difference of opinion that is accompanied by the rational sense of proving its validity. Likewise, I completely dislike and disapprove of empty rhetoric directed at causing sensationalistic responses from those reading; the troll in the room, if you will.

The cause for wanting to understand things oversimplified by the questioning nature I find relevant is in fact what leads me to think that others -clearly not everyone- is lost to their own devices. The need to be informed seems to have morphed without anyone giving notice to what was happening until the systems we have in place today became a standard for knowledge. Places like Reddit, Wikipedia, and others are the response to our times having learned about opinion being what it is today, rather than understanding that opinion is merely unproven and often biased unverified thought(s).

Going outside entails having to deal with the constant need to separate the views of a few with the real feelings and thought of people. We are/become a hive-mind. With everyone reading the same things, discussing the same things, and acting upon those same things -often without reason- is cause for concern given that individuality seems to be disappearing. Is that a bad thing? I truly do not have an answer, however, I do dislike it very much. I dislike it because if I talk to someone about say, the very real threat there is towards Earth via cosmic travelers (asteroids, interstellar objects, or other), they would be bored, or wouldn’t care. Why? Because it’s not being talked about in the media, it has no sensational value and thus is… well, not important. The lack of original thought is breeding more drones than the United States Air Force, or Chinese dove-drone programs.

Times are changing, people are changing, attitudes, and even viruses and illnesses. It is just the nature of things. However, I don’t have to like the change. I understand the sentimentality for it. I understand, but by the heavens above and earth beneath my feet, I cannot stand the way in which old and young are following the change like sheep with the news/media being the herding wolf/dog. I dare not judge. However, reality to me today, through my tired and weary eyes is as such described. There are no unique thoughts, there are no new issues, creativity is all-but-disappearing, computerization is becoming the standard others are battling against via misinformation and lack of will to know more, wars continue, medicine advancements -through robotics/3D-Printers- are mind boggling, and so much more all happening at once. Yet, bias and bigotry still exist, societal classes dominate the landscape of all cities -and their surrounding ghettos- on earth. Famine and medically challenged countries continue in their course, deforestation, the effect and affect of climate change, and so much more plaguing our world yet today. To it all we as members of Humanity demand the verbal participation of others, but of the many so few take steps in any direction.

Psychology says I am a person in need for cognition. In other words, my mental faculties must be fed. Just what is it that this herd can facilitate me with? What is the valuable lesson to be learned? What is the proof to be had for any and all present arguments? This all leaves me with the question of whether I am -or not- a misanthrope as having a reason for things does not make them true. Hence, I am or am I a misanthrope?

Want or Need

I want to discuss a few things about human nature that abate us from day-to-day as we accomplish one thing, move to another, see the need to add more, or compromise on others. I believe we must first understand that want does not create need, but it is need which creates wants. Let’s put that into perspective by asking ourselves: what do I want? Really, honestly take a moment before reading on and think of a few things you want. It is important you do not confuse what you want for what you need!

They are in fact two different things. You need sustenance in the form or hydration and other important vitamins and the like you get from foods in order to remain living. I cannot say that without oxygen we can sustain our life as we need it in order to breathe. Those are simple needs -to name a few- that we are afforded. To understand how it is not want that creates needs, let’s view the following closely. In that I am hungry, I have the need to eat. The latter is not attached to any particulars, it is a known, it is a state that must be in a sense fulfilled; to eat would fulfill hunger. Plainly speaking, what I want in relation to the need, is nothing at all, as long as the hunger is satiated with something, the something does not really matter. An available apple, banana, leftovers from yesterday, and etc. What we begin to form is a want that is bound by our desire(s). We particularly want those fries from the fast food place that makes them real good, or we want a stake from the new place on the corner, or we would definitely do well to go to that favorite coffee place of ours for those delicious pastries they have on display. None of those wants would exist without the need being present, and to that I agree. But as the need can be fulfilled by anything, it is in the want that we begin to falter. I want to go to that coffee place, or I want to get those fries, whereas you don’t need to!

The deeper and more complex the relationship between giving in to the wants, and putting off the fulfillment of the need the more we fall into the fallacy that we need the fries, or we need the coffee, or we need the cigarette, or fill in your addiction here. I dare dive full head into addictions because it is a huge want that drives us into a manufactured need. As I stated, the needs are often found to be attached to processes which stand on their own.

I will touch on the subject of addiction briefly, but there is so much more to be said. Anyone who has suffered through an addiction, its recovery, and the life after will have some major issues with the previous paragraph. However, you don’t need the drug -whatever your choice was/is. The body manufactures what you need, unless you suffer from a deficiency due to various factors, normal means no external additions. Abnormal begins when we introduce something that -to our detriment- the body needs to analyze as to whether it is a threat or not once it enters the body. Once the body does not reject the new substance due to it not seeing anything immediately harmful, then the problems begin. I don’t wish to discuss the science of the matter too much in order to retain reader attention, but there are various articles, journals, and papers that rigorously affirm the body as a sole entity needing very little from the outside except from a few essentials.

The manufactured need thus becomes the body producing less/more of something you need in order to assimilate something being introduced from outside forces, activating/deactivating systems in order to battle the detrimental nature of something introduced, or finally the withdrawal that comes from the effects of the outside source waning as it clashes with the body’s decision to stop/start production (or not at all) of substances regulated during the induced episode of internal distress.

All that turpitude was a result of the want to do something that was not needed. How then does this help to understand how want does not create need, it appears clear in the above that introduction of new substances, or the opposite from the end of the body, even to the extent of the body’s response to the absence of the stimuli seem to in fact create a later need. I agree. However, remove the former as to have the base with which we begun, then see that in the base there was no inherent need but a want that manufactured need.

It would be irresponsible not to ask, “but if that’s the case, wouldn’t everything be a manufactured need as you posit?” to which I have to say: “no”.

Every situation of every day has a singular beginning. It is not in fact attached to thousands of years of mistreatment, abuse, Civil War, or any other terrible thing that may come to mind. It was a singular event -in all instances- that was responsible for the event.

“So what you’re saying is that all those wars, years of war, deaths, and etcetera are all bull dung?”

Not at all. I dare not delve into the political side of the argument as it can be in its own very confusing. However, to address the stated questions, there are a multitude of questions one can ask:

1. Is every day of a war a day in which peace, a cease, or other modicum of civility can be reached?
1. In that every decision must be made from this very obscure top everyone mentions, where there are no higher powers to answer to, why not make a different decision? Civility for the sake of peace does not account for the monstrosities being committed by a genocide, or group of people forcibly attempting to hinder a cause for their own. Understood, however it is the exaggerated need for change that pushes humanity to atrocities. Exaggerated because there is abuse, mistreatment, or other things which are used to control. In other words, there is room from improvement, and there is no one person, group, or entity that has all the answers, but sometimes failure to listen at any point begets a response quite often overlooked because the proposed too is one-sided. At any point in any of these events there could have been an intermediary, but it is not until it is out of hand that preventing the perpetuation of this result, whatever it is civil unrest, marches, war, or other that action is sought.
2. Are or were the two people who begun trouble wishing for resolution or just to further diminish the resulute of all individuals to push them into action, an action the inciting individual wants, not an action necessary for anyone?
1. For instance, a Jihadist leader may use existing issues in order to gather attention. They may pray on others who are a bit more susceptible to manipulation due to their socioeconomic status, personal loss, loss of property, displacement, or other such criteria which makes one uneasy and more vulnerable. It is normal for a humans to want. No two people can want one thing in the same way or through the same reasons, and proof of that is the individuality that has brought the individual to that decision. Although similarities may exist in any one response, this can be due to lack of context in the chosen language of communication, the lack of descriptive factors which may push someone to say something similar to something else, and so on. What I just described is a bit hard to present. I’ll say this, where nepotism is concerned we -most of us- can agree that a carpenter should do carpenter work, and that a family member who is a carpenter can be sought before someone who is not family. The logic fits, I suppose. But would the same logic apply to a caste family, where the family-caste is wholly of weavers? It is also important to know that the need, being separate of the want cannot make decisions or choices as those are solely attributed to the person with the need who creates the want to be associated with that need.
3. Are corrupt, bad, or tyrannous governments allowed to continue? Who is the judge? What can be done? Are the possible solutions worse than the current state of things?
1. From the outside looking in is what people say. The most important question people fail to ask themselves is: “is context at all important?” Does wrong stop being wrong because of the context? “Sorry officer, I was sneezing, when my eyes opened again, I tried to swerve, but hit and killed your 5 year-old daughter as she came into the road to get her plush soccer ball.” Is context going to bring back the dead young girl? Is context going to deter death or help the family feel so much better? The only good context ever does is give the person using it an excuse for something else. Thus, from the outside looking in refers to context. “The President didn’t mean to kill all those people, but they shouldn’t have been protesting there” is an example of context. The action of killing, whether a known result of protesting there or not, can still be prevented as stated in number 1 and 2 above. As to what can be done, a lot of governments are democratic and in fact allow for the vote of the populace for decision-making. Sure, I agree that in that case it is the majority that dictates for everyone, however insensitive, wrong, or otherwise we may think they are, but it is in that inclusive process that one must -until it no longer works- count in. The same goes for different government types where the populace understand the rule of law and know that certain decisions carry certain penalties. In the same fashion, Geneva Conventions, the Constitution of any Country -where it exists-, or paper dictating the protection of rights of the individual are in fact the judge. What can be done is assertively scrutinize the existing document(s), direct that they are to be held to the power they bestow or express, and even extend a hand to allow for the exercise of the rights granted under said measures when procured.

As I stated, the political arena and the law surrounding it are quite complex and often are there for the protection of the individual parts that amount to the whole that is a country and its people. There should be little if any usurpation of existing articles that are inherent, apparent, and binding to a people. That does not mean that they should not change. The inclusion of new things in any atmosphere help shape that atmosphere into something else. As the else is what must be addressed, it is a fact that obsolescence is not just a word that smoothly leaves your lips and tongue, but something that will occur everywhere at all times. As such, obsolescence includes anything and everything that has been touched by change, will be affected by change in any form, perhaps something that has inherently the potential to induce change, and any other matter which will change the current status quo of any one thing at the time of the writing of the line. Review of practices is necessary. An example of how change must be allowed in the review of existing practices is as simple as allowing for manure, without further review and comparison, to be a key element in the so-called enrichment of soil or any other practice that will bring consumable products in contact with hormones, antibiotic, or other residue from the body of animals which may in fact get absorbed into the products we consume.

Let’s take a pause and go back to what you wanted, when the question was posed of: “what do you want”. It is not unusual for anyone to say things like: more money/a raise, peace in my life, better luck, or things along those lines. But why are those wants? What is the human necessity to want those things? None. There is no necessity. You may be saying, “well if you had my bills you’d think differently” to which you would be absolutely correct. You would be correct because we allow ourselves to be driven by our want in order to supplant what is necessary with something wanted, which often times just scratches the margin of what we can afford. I want a car. I buy a car according to my salary, not according to what I need. I want the car that everyone’s talking about, or the car I’ve dreamt of, of simply the car that really looks nice and you can afford. However, there are at any moment thousands of other cars to choose from, quite a lot of them more affordable, and manageable by your budget, vehicles that in the event we lost our jobs we wouldn’t lose the car and house with it too! But, giving in to the want is something we do so often that we do not think of it, we pay no mind or attention to the it which is our wants and how they take over us like an addiction.

I got off subject a bit by addressing the car example above. To say that there is no necessity is to say that we pick and choose the things we believe will fill the want. Nothing wrong there. What is wrong is that you have lived your own life. You have been there, in your own shoes or socks when something terrible struck, whether it was the death of a family member or loved one, loss of assets due to extenuating circumstances, fixing the home or vehicle, and much more. That is in your life. I am not saying, encouraging, or alluding to having to look backwards to move forward, no. What I am saying however is that, in a life where all situations are a guide to making decisions that at least will not get us in in the same trouble we know from experience, issue, or pain again, we tend to use those situations as stepping stones in order to mold our day or week, perhaps our lives. So, it is not about positive, negative, or any other adjective that would describe a person’s chosen way of making choices. What it entails is what happens during the time that choice is made, when the want takes over and the need completely disappears not because the want fulfills it, but because the want overpower it.

The measure of a good life depends on -like everything else in life- the eye of the person judging. A mathematician may pay some attention to a person who before dying or during their life pushed mathematics forward by allowing for redirection of old techniques into the current fold, thus aiding in the betterment of studies for generations onward. As such, the comparison could be made to almost anything. However, that is just one perspective. The measure of a good life for a child may be how many times a father, mother, or caretaker played with them. For a dancer, how people treated them after a performance, not as the dancer, but the wonderful person off the stage. The examples are endless. The need does not exist in that it is not inherent of a dead person to have any needs. However, it may be the want of a person perhaps looking for gratification in their own graceful endeavors to look upon someone comparable for a push in self-regard, or motivation, or anything else. It is in the extension of the need to other things that the want becomes exemplified by our measures towards an affair. To want is normal, to need is essential, and to act without thinking is a want in need of a need.

Belittle me no more for I know what I want, I understand what I need, and see no merit in either one.