Saturday, April 14, 2012
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The End of Exploration
As the Economist noted, this coming week will mark the final space shuttle mission. It is unlikely to be replaced by anything American, and the Russians seem content to continue to build the same old space capsules they have been for 30 years. The international space station will cease to exist after 2020. What then? Maybe the Chinese. Maybe not. The world is bankrupt. No, not jjust economically so -- but the world is bankrupt of nobility and morality.
The world, or maybe just the world's politicians, have decided that space is not worthy of exploration. For what could be worthy of exploring in the infinity that is space? The hundred billion stars that exist in the universe? Nothing can be learned from that. Black holes are completely worthless. Wormholes too. Social security is far more important, right?
Exploration has driven man to dream, to build new technologies to reach further and higher than ever before. Whether it be on the mountains, the sea or the sky above, the act of exploration has been the de facto driver of human progress. More importantly, exploration allows us to focus on progress, instead of focusing selfishly on ourselves. While most all explorations were intended to provide riches, glory or both -- the end result is productive no matter how it was achieved.
The only thing that separates us from man 2000 years ago is technology and knowledge. The human body and mind are essentially the same -- evolution takes time, of course.
In that time, no magic formula has been unearthed to allow man to not work. No miracle system has been developed to allow everyone to live a happy life. Humanity has basically the same problems it did 2000 years ago. Diseases have been erradicated, but others still exist. People live longer, but do they live happier? People still get married. They still take vacations. They still like to eat food. And, ultimately, people still die. These things are unlikely to change.
So if humanity is the same at a basic level, why explore? Because of a basic axiom "if you're not going forward, you're going backward." If mankind is not exploring, it is left to focus on less noble causes, like the quest for human pleasure.
Yes, it is very clear that there is another dark age upon us. While we have instant access to all of the knowledge in the history of the world at every man's fingertips on the planet, we have failed to do anything meaningful with it -- and choose on a daily basis to ignore it. Instead, we play games, chat and watch pornography online. We watch Housewives of New York City and the NFL. Hardly noble, we do everything possible to not use our minds for progress.
Arthur C. Clarke dreamed that in 2001 we would be exploring the Moon and Jupiter, not Park Ave. His films inspired generations of humans to reach for the stars, not another Gucci. Unfortunately, humanity fell woefully short, as usual. And we are about to throw it away all together -- the most important exploration in all of the history of mankind, and we're giving up.
In the last dark ages the Catholic Church was the repository of knowledge that kept humanity from slipping back a thousand years -- instead it was only a couple of hundred years lost. Maybe google will perform that function for us this time. If we're lucky.
Friday, May 6, 2011
5 women and 5 men
Once upon a time, 5 men and 5 women of a town were all skilled in different trades, but sustained themselves. After awhile, the people of the town recognized that they were better at some things than others. One man was an excellent farmer. Another woman was a great cook. Soon all but two of the townspeople had left farming and a micro-economy developed from the inherent division of labor. The people’s lives flourished and their wealth grew, and they were able to keep some of their excess production as savings. With more time to think politically thanks to increased productivity, they formed a village government that only required a simple majority to pass laws.
One day many years later one of the older men was tired. He felt that he had worked hard enough and grown too old to work. And so, he stopped producing his goods. At first, the man continued to trade his savings for his current needs. However, this man had not saved enough to live forever. Fortunately, the others felt loyal to this man for how hard he had worked for them and decided to continue to support him. The man lived in happiness. Some time later another man fell ill. While this man could’ve returned to work, after seeing the first man "retire" he petitioned others for a medical disability. As he was much younger than the first man, he had saved little. Feeling sorry for this man the other 8 obliged and set out to work harder to support the two men of “less fortunate” circumstances.
Some time later, one of the women of the village became pregnant with child. The father, who was also from the town, demanded that his wife be able to stop working to care for the town’s only child. He said that he would do double the work to compensate, and that one day the child would help with the town’s work. The townspeople felt sorry for them and since they had already agreed to support two other members of society, the felt they had a need to do the same for this woman, and so they acquiesced.
Unfortunately, the father did not work any harder. In fact, he worked less hard as the time at home with the newborn and his now wife was very stressful to him. The father, realizing that now with 4 out of 10 townspeople not working (or desiring to work), he only had to convince one of other of the workers that it was ok for him too. Being a clever man, he convinced one of the other women that if she voted to let him stay home that when she became pregnant he would vote for her to stay home. She agreed – and the father demanded of the townspeople that he be allowed to stay home to take care of his wife “part-time”. Seeing as though the father had secured the necessary votes already, the father was sent home. He worked but an hour of the day cleaning around the village as “that was all he could do.”
Now with only 6 people working to support 10, all of the remaining townspeople had to work very hard – extra hard. For years, the farmers would rise early and go to bed late and then help do the other jobs that the "retired" or "disabled" were once doing. At lunchtime they would walk and see the non-workers sitting around, joking with one another about how little they had to give to receive so much. This angered one of the farmers so much that he decided to quit sharing his food with everyone else.
The townspeople, when hearing of his denial, demanded that he provide the food that he had worked so hard to produce. “That food is not yours farmer– it’s the village’s. You work for us. We share with each other. Since it is ours, we will take it as we are hungry.” The farmer, no longer able to take the demands of those who do nothing for him in return, finally replied: “The food is mine. I made it on my land. From my seeds. From the sweat of my brow. I will not give you what is rightfully mine because it is not yours. You share nothing because you have nothing to share because you produce nothing. I agreed to exchange my production for yours. I never agreed that I would give up my ownership, my freedom. Fairness demands that I should rather burn what I have grown than give it to those who have done so little for so long. You all made reasonable arguments for why you cannot work. But the reality is it was a choice – a choice to take from another, with the blessing and assistance of the state. I have now made my choice.”
And at that moment he set fire to his stock of food, at least 3 months worth, in the middle of the village. The townspeople, in horror, cried “you have committed a crime against the state! We cannot allow people to destroy state property. We must make an example of you so that no one else will commit such a horrible act and endanger the lives of the villagers.”
And so those that did nothing for so long decided to do something – and punish the man who stood up to the tyranny of leaches; the thieves of a man’s right to produce or not produce. As in every socialist state, the only remedy against those refuse the demands of the many, is the threat of (and eventual execution of) force.
- The arbiter of thought
One day many years later one of the older men was tired. He felt that he had worked hard enough and grown too old to work. And so, he stopped producing his goods. At first, the man continued to trade his savings for his current needs. However, this man had not saved enough to live forever. Fortunately, the others felt loyal to this man for how hard he had worked for them and decided to continue to support him. The man lived in happiness. Some time later another man fell ill. While this man could’ve returned to work, after seeing the first man "retire" he petitioned others for a medical disability. As he was much younger than the first man, he had saved little. Feeling sorry for this man the other 8 obliged and set out to work harder to support the two men of “less fortunate” circumstances.
Some time later, one of the women of the village became pregnant with child. The father, who was also from the town, demanded that his wife be able to stop working to care for the town’s only child. He said that he would do double the work to compensate, and that one day the child would help with the town’s work. The townspeople felt sorry for them and since they had already agreed to support two other members of society, the felt they had a need to do the same for this woman, and so they acquiesced.
Unfortunately, the father did not work any harder. In fact, he worked less hard as the time at home with the newborn and his now wife was very stressful to him. The father, realizing that now with 4 out of 10 townspeople not working (or desiring to work), he only had to convince one of other of the workers that it was ok for him too. Being a clever man, he convinced one of the other women that if she voted to let him stay home that when she became pregnant he would vote for her to stay home. She agreed – and the father demanded of the townspeople that he be allowed to stay home to take care of his wife “part-time”. Seeing as though the father had secured the necessary votes already, the father was sent home. He worked but an hour of the day cleaning around the village as “that was all he could do.”
Now with only 6 people working to support 10, all of the remaining townspeople had to work very hard – extra hard. For years, the farmers would rise early and go to bed late and then help do the other jobs that the "retired" or "disabled" were once doing. At lunchtime they would walk and see the non-workers sitting around, joking with one another about how little they had to give to receive so much. This angered one of the farmers so much that he decided to quit sharing his food with everyone else.
The townspeople, when hearing of his denial, demanded that he provide the food that he had worked so hard to produce. “That food is not yours farmer– it’s the village’s. You work for us. We share with each other. Since it is ours, we will take it as we are hungry.” The farmer, no longer able to take the demands of those who do nothing for him in return, finally replied: “The food is mine. I made it on my land. From my seeds. From the sweat of my brow. I will not give you what is rightfully mine because it is not yours. You share nothing because you have nothing to share because you produce nothing. I agreed to exchange my production for yours. I never agreed that I would give up my ownership, my freedom. Fairness demands that I should rather burn what I have grown than give it to those who have done so little for so long. You all made reasonable arguments for why you cannot work. But the reality is it was a choice – a choice to take from another, with the blessing and assistance of the state. I have now made my choice.”
And at that moment he set fire to his stock of food, at least 3 months worth, in the middle of the village. The townspeople, in horror, cried “you have committed a crime against the state! We cannot allow people to destroy state property. We must make an example of you so that no one else will commit such a horrible act and endanger the lives of the villagers.”
And so those that did nothing for so long decided to do something – and punish the man who stood up to the tyranny of leaches; the thieves of a man’s right to produce or not produce. As in every socialist state, the only remedy against those refuse the demands of the many, is the threat of (and eventual execution of) force.
- The arbiter of thought
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Weight
God places the heaviest burden on those who can carry it's weight -- Reggie White
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Whistle by
People whistling by
Not even a glimmer in their eye
First to turn
Rightful place in the urn
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Not even a glimmer in their eye
First to turn
Rightful place in the urn
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
