The word 'Dystopia' has become a landmark in the realm of teenage and young adult literature. It's arguably the most popular genre of books to the younger generation, with heartthrobs and young girls arguing over 'Gale and Peeta' or fluttering hearts over 'Tris and Four.' With so many modern dystopian novels taking the realm of young love and themes of rebellion and youthful innocence placed around teenage identity. In this case, we see a rising trend in the popularity of dystopian literature in the past couple of decades, and can trace the true fundamental reasons as to why they're so successful.
Dystopian novels are all over the place. In terms of subject matter there are dystopian novels that appeal to the heart, such as Atwood's 'Oryx and Crake' or Orwell's '1984,' there are dystopian novels that caused controversy beyond measure, such as MacDonald's 'The Turner Diaries' or Burgess's 'A Clockwork Orange,' there are dystopian novels that appeal to a scientific mind, like Crichton's 'State of Mind' or Huxely's 'Brave New World.' These novels reflect everything from romance and determination to racism to chaos theory.
Even still the system of dystopian identity has carried its way into the film world. With releases like 'Elysium' and 'Blade Runner,' there has been a surge of dystopian movies, especially in the early 80s, that reflect that same sense of stylization of a reflective society with some sort of negative implication. Because of there being so popular a realm of dystopian scenes, the surge of dystopian implication is only rising in the near future.
Dystopian novels reach into the human psyche of fear. There's a growing curiosity in the human mind that reflects the idea of what happens in the future.
According to the quantum theory of time and space, the physical systems of time (past, present, and future) are all happening at the same time, and we, being in the universe of the present, are unable to reach into the future to see it. Thus, the uncertainty principle exists for both the theory of quantum mechanics as well as the unpredictability of the future. Now, the American identity of freedom, liberty and equality lends itself towards a democratic state with not a large amount of change that could spark a dystopian society, and some of the ones mentioned above (primarily Turner Diaries, Brave New World, Handmaid's Tale) all seem relatively far-fetched in terms of their likelihood.
Nevertheless, the human condition of being curious as to what the 'future holds' is the foundation for what is represented in the realm of dystopian literature. Therefore, because we don't know for certain what's going to happen in the future, there's no feasible way for us to have any sort of ideological background to emphasize the understanding of what's most likely to happen. Thus, we can't say that 'Handmaid's Tale' is a guarantee because we have no complex understanding of either gender roles or their evolutionary development into the future of American society.
Now, some things are feasible in that sense. Much of the situations revolving around Orwell's '1984' are reflected with things like the PATRIOT Act and the creation and enforcement of the NSA, and speak volumes about the predicted world only 75 years prior. There are some dystopian novels that make sense: 'Life as We Knew It' revolves around a meteor crashing into the moon, which is a very catastrophic event that takes away the survivability of life on Earth. As well, it reflects the mannerism of uncontrollable devastation, because there is no way for us to reroute the path of the asteroid. Thus, the book, while personally not my favorite, reflects almost the most likely scenario that some sort of dystopian piece of fiction could take in the near future.
Now, there are other novels that take a more radical approach with a similar sense of likelihood. One of these is Crichton's 'State of Fear,' which reflects a global-warming group planning to commit acts of terrorism. Now, I believe in global warming, and I've addressed this numerous times in previous blogs. But the story in 'Fear' takes the more radical approach to describe the violent upheavals of social situations where the radical nature of certain groups becomes far more than people are able to understand. It's similar to groups like 'Al-Qaeda,' who commit the acts they do based upon social principles which they feel have been violated. As a result, the 'State of Fear,' whether religious or environmental, nonetheless exists and is a prevalent point of the dystopian scenario.
Is it possible that there can be a dystopian society within the next 20 years? No. Not with the mass institution of democratic ideologies that represent the concepts of open liberty and expression. But this also doesn't mean that that situation is completely impossible. There is always the chance that one political party could screw up so badly that the radical nature of the other side could come to power, and one country could end up with an institution similar to the Island States of the universe of '1984.' Or, there could be a radical right wing who wants to reinstitute the clauses and expressions of the Christian faith, and the Red, White and Blue of America becomes the gender-divided Atwood story of 'Handmaid's Tale.' I would go so far as to say that there could be a high-speed asteroid that collides with the Earth and wipes out all of humanity in a matter of months. While frightening and terrifying, the nature of the world, much like the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, we simply just don't know.
And there's no way for us to find out anytime soon.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Thursday, May 14, 2015
'The Road' and 'Mad Max'
'The Road' is a twisted vision of a strikingly near future. In Cormac McCarthy's epic, a young boy and his father wander a cross a scorched America, burned almost to the ground. There's a brooding greyness and sense of depression rampant across the novel,. which strikes a blistering mood of climactic anxiety and growing stimulations of just sheer anger and sadness. It's not a happy story by any means, and represents a story of survival and retribution by the father and son to survive regardless of the situation that arises.
In honor of one of my favorite film series coming back to modern cinema, the interesting comparison one can draw between the dystopia of 'Road' and the oil-barren dystopia of the 'Mad Max' franchise. While one is much more action-packed and action-y than the other, both stories at the roots of their conceptualization rely on concepts of retribution, survival and endurance.
'The Road' fathoms the dark sense of agony, depression and sadness by showing the father surviving alone with his only son, after his wife has given up on any chance of survival and killed herself. Thus, the story revolves heavily around the concept of retribution, as the father is taking any means necessary to protect his son. Hence, when there grows a sense of tension and danger with strangers running across America trying to find scraps of life and cannibalistic survival, it becomes all about the survival of the child.
While 'Mad Max' is not a heart-touching story of a father's journey across the country with his son, it nevertheless represents the same sort of survival identity. Max, when his wife and child are murdered by a group of savages in a dystopia hell-bent on stealing propane for their own personal use, there grows a heavy spirit of retribution and vengeance that forces Max to cross the rest of the burned nation to terminate those that have caused his suffering.
Interestingly, between the two stories there are similar ties of doing whatever is possible to ensure their survival. With Max, you have the parallel that the further and deeper he goes into hunting the people who hurt him so badly, he becomes equally as evil and cruel as the men he hunts. It's a philosophical issue that derives the concept of vengeance and survival, where Max is so angered with the loss of both his wife and his child that the sheer concept of hunting their killers alone is enough to drive him to the brink of insanity.
'The Road' is a different entity but revolves around the same concept of survival. For the father, the wife was the one constant he had when she was pregnant and was his way of ensuring his optimism promoting his survival. When she's gone, all of a sudden the only outlet that the father can carry is the son, and the whole story begins to revolve around ensuring that the boy can get to safety, protecting him from the evils and dangers of the surrounding world.
On paper the two stories don't share any sort of necessary similarity. But when a deeper analysis of the story is conducted, they both reflect similar concepts of total retribution and anger towards some sort of unstoppable force bearing the darkness inside of two individuals. While one focuses on the story of a mad man and the other about a father and son, they regardless reflect the symbolism of survival in very similar ways.
In honor of one of my favorite film series coming back to modern cinema, the interesting comparison one can draw between the dystopia of 'Road' and the oil-barren dystopia of the 'Mad Max' franchise. While one is much more action-packed and action-y than the other, both stories at the roots of their conceptualization rely on concepts of retribution, survival and endurance.
'The Road' fathoms the dark sense of agony, depression and sadness by showing the father surviving alone with his only son, after his wife has given up on any chance of survival and killed herself. Thus, the story revolves heavily around the concept of retribution, as the father is taking any means necessary to protect his son. Hence, when there grows a sense of tension and danger with strangers running across America trying to find scraps of life and cannibalistic survival, it becomes all about the survival of the child.
While 'Mad Max' is not a heart-touching story of a father's journey across the country with his son, it nevertheless represents the same sort of survival identity. Max, when his wife and child are murdered by a group of savages in a dystopia hell-bent on stealing propane for their own personal use, there grows a heavy spirit of retribution and vengeance that forces Max to cross the rest of the burned nation to terminate those that have caused his suffering.
Interestingly, between the two stories there are similar ties of doing whatever is possible to ensure their survival. With Max, you have the parallel that the further and deeper he goes into hunting the people who hurt him so badly, he becomes equally as evil and cruel as the men he hunts. It's a philosophical issue that derives the concept of vengeance and survival, where Max is so angered with the loss of both his wife and his child that the sheer concept of hunting their killers alone is enough to drive him to the brink of insanity.
'The Road' is a different entity but revolves around the same concept of survival. For the father, the wife was the one constant he had when she was pregnant and was his way of ensuring his optimism promoting his survival. When she's gone, all of a sudden the only outlet that the father can carry is the son, and the whole story begins to revolve around ensuring that the boy can get to safety, protecting him from the evils and dangers of the surrounding world.
On paper the two stories don't share any sort of necessary similarity. But when a deeper analysis of the story is conducted, they both reflect similar concepts of total retribution and anger towards some sort of unstoppable force bearing the darkness inside of two individuals. While one focuses on the story of a mad man and the other about a father and son, they regardless reflect the symbolism of survival in very similar ways.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
'Handmaid's Tale' and Theocracy
In Margaret Atwood's 'Handmaid's Tale,' the main character Offred lives in a government state where she has all full limitations placed on her social mobility. Within the theocratic state, women from all walks of life are stripped of their basic fundamental human rights, treated no better than servants or slaves. Recognizing the traditional stature of women in pre-modern society, the religious, eerily Christian, theocratic government follows the route of traditional institution and as a result demonstrates one of the key problems with theocracy.
Theocracy, or 'theological government,' is a stylization of government, like democracy or aristocracy, where the commanding force is religion. Unlike democracy, which praises the concept of open voting, public opinion and free market, a theocracy instead forces the dominance of a singular religion and concept in the face and throat of the people in the nation. Therefore, the similar expressions of multiple religions often found in government institutions such as democracy no longer play an effect.
As of right now, there is no major dictatorial theocratic authority in the world. There is too much open religious expression in the West for there to be a single religious takeover, and in terms of most Asian nations, there isn't a major expression of religious ideology that fundamentally takes control over the minds of multiple individuals.
The only theocratic republic on Earth as of now is Iran. The bodies of government are religious officials appointed by a single theocratic leader, and much of the policies of Iranian government reflect the beliefs and expressions of the Islam faith. As a result, much of the moral ethics of the Iranian institutions rely on the sole concept of the individual faith and expression of the Qur'an, the holy scripture of the Islamic religion, and serve as a testament to the guidelines of faith.
However, there has been a rapid decline in the power of the theocratic authority present in the Iranian state. Therefore, it demonstrates a sense of weakness within the confines of what a theocratic government stands for. Because the Iranian government cannot maintain a pure sense of totalitarian rule the way the Republic of Gilead can in 'Tale,' the weakness of theocracy bleeds through.
So why?
Theocracy requires total commitment to religious faith regardless of what the institution says. It means sacrificing all of your values and opinions to a single regulated faith, the way much of the population had in 'Tale.' It's simply impossible to completely convince the entire population of a single nation to believe all of the same things, especially in the eyes of a divine being not everyone is able to agree on.
While the Republic of Gilead seems to be a real example of a theocratic state that fundamentally works, in actuality the 'Eyes' still exist, and the concept of the theocratic underground is still and active part of the state. As a result, the government cannot completely control the faith of every individual with respect to their fundamental ethics and morals; as a result the government does not have a true sense of expression and represents the truest flaws prevalent in a theocratic government.
So the consensus?
Theocracy, in it's truest form, like communism, is impossible.
Theocracy, or 'theological government,' is a stylization of government, like democracy or aristocracy, where the commanding force is religion. Unlike democracy, which praises the concept of open voting, public opinion and free market, a theocracy instead forces the dominance of a singular religion and concept in the face and throat of the people in the nation. Therefore, the similar expressions of multiple religions often found in government institutions such as democracy no longer play an effect.
As of right now, there is no major dictatorial theocratic authority in the world. There is too much open religious expression in the West for there to be a single religious takeover, and in terms of most Asian nations, there isn't a major expression of religious ideology that fundamentally takes control over the minds of multiple individuals.
The only theocratic republic on Earth as of now is Iran. The bodies of government are religious officials appointed by a single theocratic leader, and much of the policies of Iranian government reflect the beliefs and expressions of the Islam faith. As a result, much of the moral ethics of the Iranian institutions rely on the sole concept of the individual faith and expression of the Qur'an, the holy scripture of the Islamic religion, and serve as a testament to the guidelines of faith.
However, there has been a rapid decline in the power of the theocratic authority present in the Iranian state. Therefore, it demonstrates a sense of weakness within the confines of what a theocratic government stands for. Because the Iranian government cannot maintain a pure sense of totalitarian rule the way the Republic of Gilead can in 'Tale,' the weakness of theocracy bleeds through.
So why?
Theocracy requires total commitment to religious faith regardless of what the institution says. It means sacrificing all of your values and opinions to a single regulated faith, the way much of the population had in 'Tale.' It's simply impossible to completely convince the entire population of a single nation to believe all of the same things, especially in the eyes of a divine being not everyone is able to agree on.
While the Republic of Gilead seems to be a real example of a theocratic state that fundamentally works, in actuality the 'Eyes' still exist, and the concept of the theocratic underground is still and active part of the state. As a result, the government cannot completely control the faith of every individual with respect to their fundamental ethics and morals; as a result the government does not have a true sense of expression and represents the truest flaws prevalent in a theocratic government.
So the consensus?
Theocracy, in it's truest form, like communism, is impossible.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
"Children of Men" and God
'Children of Men' reflects a post-apocalyptic Earth where a deadly flu virus has made almost all women on Earth unable to be fertile. By this standard, there has not been a child born in 18 years, and therefore, the youngest person on the world is 18 years of age. The movie reflects the leader of a resistance group as he carries the first pregnant woman in 18 years to a safety group known as the 'Human Project.'
The movie is famous for its unrealistically long shots, having the longest single recorded take in movie production history. However, behind the unusually high production value, there's a very heavy sense of metaphorical motif and understanding that lets the movie mean a whole lot more than a story about mass infertility.
One of the most core metaphors of the film is its tie to religion. There are a lot of movies who try to make their character symbolic allegories to the greater deities and religious beings, but 'Children of Men' does a very good job at maintaining a deep symbolism but not ramming the identity down the throat of the viewer. As a result, the movie is fair and intricately detailed.
The story revolves around the main character, Theo. After losing his child to the deadly flu virus, he was a member of a resistance group and was estrange with his terrorist-leader wife, Julian. When things went south, he decided to call it, not wanting to be a part of the system of terrorism anymore. That changes when his estranged wife calls upon him to deliver the first pregnant girl, Kee, to the 'Human Project,' who is trying to protect fertile infants from imposition of government and resistance.
In terms of religious doctrine, Theo represents the epic character of self-awareness and discovery. Unaware of what he truly wants in the beginning of the story, it takes a journey of 'epic' proportions to truly discover his individual identity. The structure of his character is very similar to that of Aeneas in Virgil's 'Aeneid' and Dante Alighieri's 'Dante' in the 'Divine Comedy.' While the religious symbolism behind both stories is much more heavily impacted in terms of plot structure and reference, the same system of the ability to develop a character's identity through the challenge of arduous journey and self-exploration is very present.
The main Christian symbolism in the movie is the birth of Dylan, the daughter of Kee. Theo and Kee, while not 100% obvious, are mirrors of the story of John and Mary, who deliver the birth of the savior, Jesus Christ. In the traditional Christmas story, the birth of Jesus through the virgin Mary (although Kee, self-admittedly, is not a virgin) reflects the symbolism of salvation and safety for the followers of the Abrahamic God, and represents the idea of being protected by the son of the greatest divinity.
Because Dylan represents the first child born in 18 years, it reflects the same mannerism of hope and salvation present among commoners in a world gone south. Because of Kee's fertility, it shows the idea that there are possibly other women who are able to give birth. as a result, there's 'hope' for the human race in the same way that baby Jesus provided hope for the many followers of the Christian God, both reflecting the idea of human salvation.
Theo and John were the two who escorted their respective women, Kee and Mary, to a place where the child would be born. Both children were born in non-ideal conditions, a dark room on a mattress and a stable, and produced a symbol of light when they were birthed that represented the symbolism of hope and possible positive outcome. The similarities between each story are irrevocably concrete.
Overall, whether it wants to be or not, 'Children of Men' is a post-apocalyptic re-imagining of the traditional Christmas story. While there are a lot more bullets, a lot more deaths, and a lot more blood than the story in the Bible, there is a heavy similarity between the ideals of hope and salvation, both of which reflect saving humanity in a time of desperation and necessity.
The movie is famous for its unrealistically long shots, having the longest single recorded take in movie production history. However, behind the unusually high production value, there's a very heavy sense of metaphorical motif and understanding that lets the movie mean a whole lot more than a story about mass infertility.
One of the most core metaphors of the film is its tie to religion. There are a lot of movies who try to make their character symbolic allegories to the greater deities and religious beings, but 'Children of Men' does a very good job at maintaining a deep symbolism but not ramming the identity down the throat of the viewer. As a result, the movie is fair and intricately detailed.
The story revolves around the main character, Theo. After losing his child to the deadly flu virus, he was a member of a resistance group and was estrange with his terrorist-leader wife, Julian. When things went south, he decided to call it, not wanting to be a part of the system of terrorism anymore. That changes when his estranged wife calls upon him to deliver the first pregnant girl, Kee, to the 'Human Project,' who is trying to protect fertile infants from imposition of government and resistance.
In terms of religious doctrine, Theo represents the epic character of self-awareness and discovery. Unaware of what he truly wants in the beginning of the story, it takes a journey of 'epic' proportions to truly discover his individual identity. The structure of his character is very similar to that of Aeneas in Virgil's 'Aeneid' and Dante Alighieri's 'Dante' in the 'Divine Comedy.' While the religious symbolism behind both stories is much more heavily impacted in terms of plot structure and reference, the same system of the ability to develop a character's identity through the challenge of arduous journey and self-exploration is very present.
The main Christian symbolism in the movie is the birth of Dylan, the daughter of Kee. Theo and Kee, while not 100% obvious, are mirrors of the story of John and Mary, who deliver the birth of the savior, Jesus Christ. In the traditional Christmas story, the birth of Jesus through the virgin Mary (although Kee, self-admittedly, is not a virgin) reflects the symbolism of salvation and safety for the followers of the Abrahamic God, and represents the idea of being protected by the son of the greatest divinity.
Because Dylan represents the first child born in 18 years, it reflects the same mannerism of hope and salvation present among commoners in a world gone south. Because of Kee's fertility, it shows the idea that there are possibly other women who are able to give birth. as a result, there's 'hope' for the human race in the same way that baby Jesus provided hope for the many followers of the Christian God, both reflecting the idea of human salvation.
Theo and John were the two who escorted their respective women, Kee and Mary, to a place where the child would be born. Both children were born in non-ideal conditions, a dark room on a mattress and a stable, and produced a symbol of light when they were birthed that represented the symbolism of hope and possible positive outcome. The similarities between each story are irrevocably concrete.
Overall, whether it wants to be or not, 'Children of Men' is a post-apocalyptic re-imagining of the traditional Christmas story. While there are a lot more bullets, a lot more deaths, and a lot more blood than the story in the Bible, there is a heavy similarity between the ideals of hope and salvation, both of which reflect saving humanity in a time of desperation and necessity.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Is 'Life as We Knew It' Feasible?
The prospect of an end to life as we know it could be played out in a myriad of separate events. There's everything from global disasters to political insurgency to a legitimate religious end of days. Regardless of the spectrum of the apocalypse, there's little doubt that the entirety of the human race will be able to survive all of time, and there's a chance in the future, hopefully not near, that everything we know could eventually come to an end.
In the book 'Life as We Knew It,' the apocalypse comes through the concept of collision between a very large meteor and the moon. While the size of the meteor being smacked against the moon is never given, it's assumed to be large, and knocks the moon off of its once clear orbit. As a result, chaos ensues back on Earth, with weather patterns fluctuating, tides turning into tsunamis, days getting longer, and other natural disasters that pits main character Miranda against nature.
So how feasible is this scenario?
A large amount of interstellar objects actually collide with the moon quite frequently. When smaller objects come in contact with the moon, there's really no backlash to what happens. It's more of just a small asteroid or tiny space rock hitting against the side of the moon and really not doing the level of damage present in the novel.
Metaphorically, imagine it like throwing a golf ball against a concrete wall. There may be a little bit of dirt or dust that bounces off of the wall, but there's really no damage at all being done to the wall itself. Because of this, the moon is not smooth but rather is covered in craters and tiny little pockets that were caused as a result of the tiny different rocks that end up hitting the moon.
So what puts us in danger?
According to the Atlantic newspaper, if there was an asteroid that was the size of the moon that managed to ram into the moon, the moon would finally shatter into pieces. Because of the magnitude of both pieces of space rock, when one comes in contact with the other, it provides enough magnitude to not only knock the Earth off of its course but even come close to destroying it. What does this mean for the rest of us?
The moon is what regulates the tides of the ocean. Because of this, there's a common pattern regulation to how the ocean waves interact with the Earth's atmosphere and therefore have some sort of dictation to weather patterns and global interaction. If this system were to be thrown off because the controller of the tides was broken, all of a sudden the weather patterns and interactions become both uncontrolled and unpredictable. Even still, the pieces of the moon that were shattered as a result of the major collision between the moon and the moon-sized asteroid would be able to fly towards the Earth, because their size and mass would be too high for the atmosphere to burn up and destroy.
So the verdict? It would take a large asteroid, larger than mankind has seen before, to be able to recreate the things present in 'Life as We Knew It.' However, this doesn't make it impossible. It's scary to think about, but if the idea of destroying the moon and taking away one of the fundamental controllers of the laws of Earthly physics, both the physical and environmental results could be, for the human race, fatal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/what-if-a-large-asteroid-were-to-hit-the-moon/248129/
In the book 'Life as We Knew It,' the apocalypse comes through the concept of collision between a very large meteor and the moon. While the size of the meteor being smacked against the moon is never given, it's assumed to be large, and knocks the moon off of its once clear orbit. As a result, chaos ensues back on Earth, with weather patterns fluctuating, tides turning into tsunamis, days getting longer, and other natural disasters that pits main character Miranda against nature.
So how feasible is this scenario?
A large amount of interstellar objects actually collide with the moon quite frequently. When smaller objects come in contact with the moon, there's really no backlash to what happens. It's more of just a small asteroid or tiny space rock hitting against the side of the moon and really not doing the level of damage present in the novel.
Metaphorically, imagine it like throwing a golf ball against a concrete wall. There may be a little bit of dirt or dust that bounces off of the wall, but there's really no damage at all being done to the wall itself. Because of this, the moon is not smooth but rather is covered in craters and tiny little pockets that were caused as a result of the tiny different rocks that end up hitting the moon.
So what puts us in danger?
According to the Atlantic newspaper, if there was an asteroid that was the size of the moon that managed to ram into the moon, the moon would finally shatter into pieces. Because of the magnitude of both pieces of space rock, when one comes in contact with the other, it provides enough magnitude to not only knock the Earth off of its course but even come close to destroying it. What does this mean for the rest of us?
The moon is what regulates the tides of the ocean. Because of this, there's a common pattern regulation to how the ocean waves interact with the Earth's atmosphere and therefore have some sort of dictation to weather patterns and global interaction. If this system were to be thrown off because the controller of the tides was broken, all of a sudden the weather patterns and interactions become both uncontrolled and unpredictable. Even still, the pieces of the moon that were shattered as a result of the major collision between the moon and the moon-sized asteroid would be able to fly towards the Earth, because their size and mass would be too high for the atmosphere to burn up and destroy.
So the verdict? It would take a large asteroid, larger than mankind has seen before, to be able to recreate the things present in 'Life as We Knew It.' However, this doesn't make it impossible. It's scary to think about, but if the idea of destroying the moon and taking away one of the fundamental controllers of the laws of Earthly physics, both the physical and environmental results could be, for the human race, fatal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/what-if-a-large-asteroid-were-to-hit-the-moon/248129/
Monday, March 23, 2015
A Customized "Feed" - Part 2
Resist the Feed.
Be Violet. Because the more you listen to the Feed, the more you succumb to the concept of letting the mass government take control of who you are. There's a sense of individuality that comes with being a human being, and its a beautiful complexity that is only preserved in the crevices of the human mind. When the Feed takes over, it takes the individuality of a human being and turns him into a mindless consumer.
Think about it like the thought experiment in philosophy "The Happiness Machine." When you step into the machine, all of your fantasies and dreams come true. All feelings of victory, accomplishment, zen, euphoria, all are electronically transmitted into you. You are free to leave the machine at any time, but you return to the world and realize the senses of happiness that you experience are nothing more than a silhouette.
Logically, you should enter the machine. One of the ultimate goals of human kind is to be happy and satisfied with the life you live. However, reasonably, you shouldn't. The false sense of happiness is only artificial, and as a result, it's not the true sense of happiness that you spend your entire life searching for and hoping to find.
This is the same logic with a Feed. There's an individuality to being open and creative with the way you sculpt your personality. It's almost a metaphor to what Violet was doing to resist the Feed in trying to create the ultimate consumer profile. She was trying to turn her personality into a rainbow of colors, representing the human emotion of curiosity and willingness to change.
When you succumb to the Feed, you lose your ability to formulate ideals without any sort of internal influence. When someone starts telling you what you want, and you listen, all of a sudden you don't need to think or make decisions because there's someone out there doing it for you. Thus, human creativity falls short and you're left an empty shell because you have no capacity of listening and forming your own opinion.
So how do you fight the Feed? Don't get a Feed. It's a radical concept, but the only true way of avoiding the Feed completely is to not be exposed to it whatsoever. Because the Feed is so enticing, it's almost a poison, there being so many beautiful features of the device it becomes impossible to avoid. The only true way to form your own opinions and avoid mass corporate influence on your decisions and opinions is to not be exposed to the Feed altogether. Once you become a part of the Feed, the only true way is to think like Violet: ignore it, and keep your mind open. Once the mind conforms, there's no getting out.
Look at what Titus did to Violet. That's why you fight the Feed.
Be Violet. Because the more you listen to the Feed, the more you succumb to the concept of letting the mass government take control of who you are. There's a sense of individuality that comes with being a human being, and its a beautiful complexity that is only preserved in the crevices of the human mind. When the Feed takes over, it takes the individuality of a human being and turns him into a mindless consumer.
Think about it like the thought experiment in philosophy "The Happiness Machine." When you step into the machine, all of your fantasies and dreams come true. All feelings of victory, accomplishment, zen, euphoria, all are electronically transmitted into you. You are free to leave the machine at any time, but you return to the world and realize the senses of happiness that you experience are nothing more than a silhouette.
Logically, you should enter the machine. One of the ultimate goals of human kind is to be happy and satisfied with the life you live. However, reasonably, you shouldn't. The false sense of happiness is only artificial, and as a result, it's not the true sense of happiness that you spend your entire life searching for and hoping to find.
This is the same logic with a Feed. There's an individuality to being open and creative with the way you sculpt your personality. It's almost a metaphor to what Violet was doing to resist the Feed in trying to create the ultimate consumer profile. She was trying to turn her personality into a rainbow of colors, representing the human emotion of curiosity and willingness to change.
When you succumb to the Feed, you lose your ability to formulate ideals without any sort of internal influence. When someone starts telling you what you want, and you listen, all of a sudden you don't need to think or make decisions because there's someone out there doing it for you. Thus, human creativity falls short and you're left an empty shell because you have no capacity of listening and forming your own opinion.
So how do you fight the Feed? Don't get a Feed. It's a radical concept, but the only true way of avoiding the Feed completely is to not be exposed to it whatsoever. Because the Feed is so enticing, it's almost a poison, there being so many beautiful features of the device it becomes impossible to avoid. The only true way to form your own opinions and avoid mass corporate influence on your decisions and opinions is to not be exposed to the Feed altogether. Once you become a part of the Feed, the only true way is to think like Violet: ignore it, and keep your mind open. Once the mind conforms, there's no getting out.
Look at what Titus did to Violet. That's why you fight the Feed.
A Customized "Feed" - Part One
My consumer profile reflected in the novel 'Feed' would be quite different from many other consumers. Unlike a lot of people my age, I don't have a desire to have something at the very second that I want it. Instead, I'm patient, and I can usually wait for some sort of object, looking more towards the past than to the future.
My feed would be advertising a lot of music. I spend a lot of time listening to all different genres of music, and as a result, there would be a large amount of audio streaming through my feed. As well, it would transmit advertisements for some of my personal hobbies, like Cardfight!! Vanguard and poetry readings, and would be a lot for swimming, the second-most important part of my life.
There would be advertisements for new aquatic facilities, new speedsuits, new tech suits and speedos, as well as new brands of goggles, new lines of goggles that fit my particular swimming style and methods; there would be opening days for concerts reflecting my favorite rap artists and metal groups, and a lot of feed streaming towards sports and athletics.
The interesting part of these is most of these advertisements are already streaming when I browse the internet. When I enter my product placements into coretcg.com, or when I buy a speed suit from swim outlet, automatically the transmissions from my product purchases tell people what I like and what I want to buy. Thus, there are already a ton of advertisements in my face from card shops and swimming sites.
My visual representation of a feed is almost mirrored in the way I browse the internet and place product orders, because the computers that we use already tend to read the things we purchase and as a result know what we want. We don't need a microchip in our brains because the things we enter into a search engine and the results we click on when they appear already tell the computer the things we want, and the things we're most likely to buy.
We don't have the microchips yet because the government has no way of making a professional instigation for forcing installation of chips into our brains. But there's nothing wrong with being skeptical, as the technological advancements in the realm of media and social advertising are quickly increasing at a very rapid rate. We aren't interrupted with our own 'Feeds' yet, but the mass corporations of the world have a solid understanding of the people we are based solely off our search engines and virtual swipes of the credit card.
My feed would be advertising a lot of music. I spend a lot of time listening to all different genres of music, and as a result, there would be a large amount of audio streaming through my feed. As well, it would transmit advertisements for some of my personal hobbies, like Cardfight!! Vanguard and poetry readings, and would be a lot for swimming, the second-most important part of my life.
There would be advertisements for new aquatic facilities, new speedsuits, new tech suits and speedos, as well as new brands of goggles, new lines of goggles that fit my particular swimming style and methods; there would be opening days for concerts reflecting my favorite rap artists and metal groups, and a lot of feed streaming towards sports and athletics.
The interesting part of these is most of these advertisements are already streaming when I browse the internet. When I enter my product placements into coretcg.com, or when I buy a speed suit from swim outlet, automatically the transmissions from my product purchases tell people what I like and what I want to buy. Thus, there are already a ton of advertisements in my face from card shops and swimming sites.
My visual representation of a feed is almost mirrored in the way I browse the internet and place product orders, because the computers that we use already tend to read the things we purchase and as a result know what we want. We don't need a microchip in our brains because the things we enter into a search engine and the results we click on when they appear already tell the computer the things we want, and the things we're most likely to buy.
We don't have the microchips yet because the government has no way of making a professional instigation for forcing installation of chips into our brains. But there's nothing wrong with being skeptical, as the technological advancements in the realm of media and social advertising are quickly increasing at a very rapid rate. We aren't interrupted with our own 'Feeds' yet, but the mass corporations of the world have a solid understanding of the people we are based solely off our search engines and virtual swipes of the credit card.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
"1984" and "The NSA"
George Orwell predicted in his 1948 masterpiece "1984" that a totalitarian government focused on stripping away the rights of the individual would be the starting pawn in the most successful totalitarian government possible. With Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," this is the original dystopian novel, depicting a world where the individuality of identity and personality are taken away for the government to feed off of.
As haunting and chilling as "1984" presents itself to be, the scariest part of the novel is its significance in drawing its comparisons to the modern world. The most prominent part of this is the concept of 'government surveillance.' There's a fine line between what the government sees as protection of individual citizenship, and what constitutes being able to 'search and seize.' In "1984" the government, through telescreens, can see each individual's actions and base their criminal preference off of microexpressions.
Now, in the modern world, the government isn't looking at us at all angles throughout every one of our days, but there's a similarity between the tracking of movement through telescreens and the idea of government wiretapping. Wiretapping is the government's ability to track and listen to each and every conversation being held over both a cell-phone, phone-booth, and wired-in phone across the United States.
There's no visual perception being taken into account, but at the same time, there's little difference between reading lips and hearing what people actually talk about. In "1984" this system is used to pick out those who believe in anti-government propaganda, and let the government find them in an attempt to convert them into faithful citizens who can support Big Brother and understand his policies, wants, and desires.
The primary difference between the two institutions is the intention for which the concept of invasion of privacy is being used. For Big Brother, this is a method used to ensure that there's no break in citizen authority, that no citizen actually feels any sort of hatred for the singular government institution. At the same time, there's a sense of security and 'paternal' protection associated with the government of Big Brother and what it means to be 'watched.'
In America, this same system of invasion of privacy is used to protect and serve American citizens. In exchange for the government being allowed to insert itself into any personal conversation a person could have, they are able to track the dangerous conversations between potential criminals, terrorists, and track threats that put the safety of Americans at risk. Thus, there's an innate sense of safety and security in the American system, which doesn't exist in Big Brother.
However, this doesn't mean that it couldn't quickly become negative. How long until the government needs some sort of outlet to ensure a political candidate won't have competition? How long until the government can misinterpret a conversation and put an innocent couple in prison? How long until the government wants to prevent any sort of anarchic movement and puts anyone in prison who has 'government bad' on their search history?
The comparisons between security invasion of the modern world and George Orwell's fictional nightmare are strikingly similar. However, the government of 1984 has very negative intentions, whereas the modern government does not. While there is an ethical moral behind the origins of the modern American government, the risks associated with invasion of privacy make it the same sot of 'early bird' Big Brother whose control over the individual could extend far greater than it ever seems logical.
As haunting and chilling as "1984" presents itself to be, the scariest part of the novel is its significance in drawing its comparisons to the modern world. The most prominent part of this is the concept of 'government surveillance.' There's a fine line between what the government sees as protection of individual citizenship, and what constitutes being able to 'search and seize.' In "1984" the government, through telescreens, can see each individual's actions and base their criminal preference off of microexpressions.
Now, in the modern world, the government isn't looking at us at all angles throughout every one of our days, but there's a similarity between the tracking of movement through telescreens and the idea of government wiretapping. Wiretapping is the government's ability to track and listen to each and every conversation being held over both a cell-phone, phone-booth, and wired-in phone across the United States.
There's no visual perception being taken into account, but at the same time, there's little difference between reading lips and hearing what people actually talk about. In "1984" this system is used to pick out those who believe in anti-government propaganda, and let the government find them in an attempt to convert them into faithful citizens who can support Big Brother and understand his policies, wants, and desires.
The primary difference between the two institutions is the intention for which the concept of invasion of privacy is being used. For Big Brother, this is a method used to ensure that there's no break in citizen authority, that no citizen actually feels any sort of hatred for the singular government institution. At the same time, there's a sense of security and 'paternal' protection associated with the government of Big Brother and what it means to be 'watched.'
In America, this same system of invasion of privacy is used to protect and serve American citizens. In exchange for the government being allowed to insert itself into any personal conversation a person could have, they are able to track the dangerous conversations between potential criminals, terrorists, and track threats that put the safety of Americans at risk. Thus, there's an innate sense of safety and security in the American system, which doesn't exist in Big Brother.
However, this doesn't mean that it couldn't quickly become negative. How long until the government needs some sort of outlet to ensure a political candidate won't have competition? How long until the government can misinterpret a conversation and put an innocent couple in prison? How long until the government wants to prevent any sort of anarchic movement and puts anyone in prison who has 'government bad' on their search history?
The comparisons between security invasion of the modern world and George Orwell's fictional nightmare are strikingly similar. However, the government of 1984 has very negative intentions, whereas the modern government does not. While there is an ethical moral behind the origins of the modern American government, the risks associated with invasion of privacy make it the same sot of 'early bird' Big Brother whose control over the individual could extend far greater than it ever seems logical.
Monday, February 16, 2015
"The Truman Show" and "1984"
"The Truman Show" is and remains one of my favorite movies of all time. Psychologically, it's a beautifully twisted story that combines the parallels of the human psyche and the ideologies of entertainment. Truman Burbank, unaware that his entire life is a reality show televised 24/7, slowly begins to unravel the mystery surrounding his life and the horrible truth behind why he can never leave Seahaven Island.
Similarly to Winston Smith in George Orwell's "1984," Smith is a simple man living in a complex world where the government sets up everything in an attempt to mold ignorance and passive aggression into the citizens falling under government control. Smith, different from everybody else, begins to strip away his parallels and see the government for the controlling totalitarian dictatorship that it truly is. These two characters, though on the surface seem completely different, share many similarities to their surrounding environment and how they choose to interact with it.
The most surprising similarity that I saw was the use of 'sex' as a rebellious ideology. You have two different characters, Julia and Sylvia, who both engage in sexual activity with the main character as a way to go against the common normality and make a statement against what the society stands for. Sylvia and Truman in the face of the television show, and Julia and Winston in a determined rebellion standing against the principles of Big Brother.
However, the means of these two acts vary in their history and means of conduction. Between Julia and Winston, it's an obvious act of rebellion in the face of a greater government. Winston himself even reflects on these actions as a heated, violent form of rebellion within the second part of the novel. This same sort of rebellious attitude is not shared by Truman and Sylvia. Truman sees Sylvia instead as a desired partner over the Truman Show's forced partner, Meryl, and while Sylvia at first is opposed, she instead falls to Truman's love and desires him as a partner. The difference comes in the desired outcome of each situation, and while similar, they vary completely in nature.
Winston and Julia meant to be rebellious, whereas Sylvia and Truman simple were meant to be.
The principles differentiate between the two couples, with one being directly influenced and viewable in the eyes of the totalitarian leadership and the other not. Sylvia and Truman can ALWAYS been seen by Cristof, the man responsible for the creation of the Truman Show. Julia and Winston, on the other hand, are free from Big Brother in certain parts of the 1984 universe, such as the forest where they first engage in sexual conduct. Nevertheless, these two stories still follow the similar pact of moving against what a society believes to be true, and follows suit further within the interactions between the lovers.
This is not the only place the two stories are similar, however. Both Winston and Truman share the idea of retaining memory. Sylvia Garland's sweater and photograph are locked in Truman's basement, and the Thought Police, as of now, are unable to track Winston remembering the times and situations he spent with his wife. Both characters share a dislike of the partners they've been 'given,' and retain the memories of the things they desire, from real, actual sex to a partner who truly cares.
However, there's a difference between this scenario as well. A fan of the Truman Show quotes "they could erase her, they couldn't erase the memory." Sylvia Garland will always be a piece of that show's fabricated history, unable to be deleted. If this were to take place within the same societal framework as 1984, however, the history would be destroyed. Those who go against the government of Big Brother are taken out of history, permanently, forever. On one hand, the government of 'Truman' cannot erase the mistakes it makes, but the government of '1984' prides itself on rewriting and changing the past.
Even with these differences, the two stories remain quite similar in their morals and stories, with the imposition of government and what it means to be human taken into account. If you haven't seen this movie, I heavily recommend it, and you will question your moral character forever once the final curtain falls.
"You NEVER had a camera in my head!"
Similarly to Winston Smith in George Orwell's "1984," Smith is a simple man living in a complex world where the government sets up everything in an attempt to mold ignorance and passive aggression into the citizens falling under government control. Smith, different from everybody else, begins to strip away his parallels and see the government for the controlling totalitarian dictatorship that it truly is. These two characters, though on the surface seem completely different, share many similarities to their surrounding environment and how they choose to interact with it.
The most surprising similarity that I saw was the use of 'sex' as a rebellious ideology. You have two different characters, Julia and Sylvia, who both engage in sexual activity with the main character as a way to go against the common normality and make a statement against what the society stands for. Sylvia and Truman in the face of the television show, and Julia and Winston in a determined rebellion standing against the principles of Big Brother.
However, the means of these two acts vary in their history and means of conduction. Between Julia and Winston, it's an obvious act of rebellion in the face of a greater government. Winston himself even reflects on these actions as a heated, violent form of rebellion within the second part of the novel. This same sort of rebellious attitude is not shared by Truman and Sylvia. Truman sees Sylvia instead as a desired partner over the Truman Show's forced partner, Meryl, and while Sylvia at first is opposed, she instead falls to Truman's love and desires him as a partner. The difference comes in the desired outcome of each situation, and while similar, they vary completely in nature.
Winston and Julia meant to be rebellious, whereas Sylvia and Truman simple were meant to be.
The principles differentiate between the two couples, with one being directly influenced and viewable in the eyes of the totalitarian leadership and the other not. Sylvia and Truman can ALWAYS been seen by Cristof, the man responsible for the creation of the Truman Show. Julia and Winston, on the other hand, are free from Big Brother in certain parts of the 1984 universe, such as the forest where they first engage in sexual conduct. Nevertheless, these two stories still follow the similar pact of moving against what a society believes to be true, and follows suit further within the interactions between the lovers.
This is not the only place the two stories are similar, however. Both Winston and Truman share the idea of retaining memory. Sylvia Garland's sweater and photograph are locked in Truman's basement, and the Thought Police, as of now, are unable to track Winston remembering the times and situations he spent with his wife. Both characters share a dislike of the partners they've been 'given,' and retain the memories of the things they desire, from real, actual sex to a partner who truly cares.
However, there's a difference between this scenario as well. A fan of the Truman Show quotes "they could erase her, they couldn't erase the memory." Sylvia Garland will always be a piece of that show's fabricated history, unable to be deleted. If this were to take place within the same societal framework as 1984, however, the history would be destroyed. Those who go against the government of Big Brother are taken out of history, permanently, forever. On one hand, the government of 'Truman' cannot erase the mistakes it makes, but the government of '1984' prides itself on rewriting and changing the past.
Even with these differences, the two stories remain quite similar in their morals and stories, with the imposition of government and what it means to be human taken into account. If you haven't seen this movie, I heavily recommend it, and you will question your moral character forever once the final curtain falls.
"You NEVER had a camera in my head!"
Monday, February 9, 2015
Harrison Bergeron and Personal Identity
Within the realm of 'Harrison Bergeron,' the idea of Utopian vision is grounded on limiting the opportunities, abilities, and talents of its citizens to maximize equality. Hence, the strong are made weak, the confident are made embarrassed, the smart are made unintelligent, and so on and so forth. There draws a line between what the government is able to control and what an individual is allowed to express through reason and personality, and the government of this dystopia seems to break that line as its means of 'population control.'
I find it interesting to view not only how the lead person in charge, the Handicapper General, would place its restrictions on me, per say, but also how he or she would in general choose to reflect that same sort of demanding, controlling spirit upon the rest of my surrounding community. Within this post, I'll be looking at 2 different parts of myself that would be handicapped, and then I'll compare it with the rest of the people whom I surround myself with.
First, I'm a swimmer. In the world of 'Bergeron,' my capability would put me ahead of those who are physically incapable of moving through the water. Thus, in the cases of flooding, storms, or need to cross a larger body of water, I would be at a huge advantage in comparison to the rest of the community. Thus, I would reflect the idea of physical advantage, putting me ahead of the rest o the community and making me 'unequal.' I would, like the rest of the physically advanced, be carrying around weights and plates around my body, making me weaker and on-par with the others.
Second, I'm a poet. Creativity in this universe seems to have a larger handicap required for termination than many other pieces of the communal puzzle. Hence, the main character, with a memory far superior to his ignorant wife, is tortured repeatedly with a small sound in his ears to destroy any sort of physicality that reflects his past. In my mind, this same sort of independent thought process would be mirrored in trying to reflect emotions within poetry. Whether or not I would be measured and tortured with the same sort of sound treatment, I don't know, but there would be some sort of mental handicap placed on my ability to form intricate sentence structure and imagery.
These countermeasures taken against those with some sort of positive output in comparison to the remainder of the community are steps by those in power to control any sense of rebellion possible within the population. Gruesome and vicious, maybe, but the reasoning makes sense when put within the context of dystopian thought and rationality. The development of a dystopian ideology relies heavily on control of the population, and thus, taking down those with some sort of mental or physical drive seems logical, and in a sense, moral.
But this falls short. In my last post, I talked about the American right to private security and unwarranted seizure. I think the context of seizure can be reflected in the mirroring image of personal identity, where the government's limitations on the rights of the individual cannot go beyond protected American rights, and then, cannot break any kind of natural law to what being a human entitles. Thus, when the government of 'Bergeron' incapacitates an individual because he can put words together to make a poem, it strips away the core essence of what drives him mentally, and takes away the one thing that makes him unique to the rest of the ignorant society giving in to government control.
Within my high school, the pressure for success and drive for athletic ability reflects that of a small college. Its a high-playing, intense academic and athletic environment that embodies the idea of making college students out of high school students. So, if 'Bergeron' was reflected in the mindset of my high school, the use of mental handicap would increase tenfold, as the GPAs and integrity of students would need to fall in order to be on-par with the other educational programs across the nation. As a result, what makes my high school unique would fall to required, unmotivated standards.
The government of 'Bergeron' makes an effort to destroy the strong and equalize the weak, preventing rebellion and setting a commonality between members of the nation. Those in power have control over the handicaps that such people receive. I have specified what my limitations would be, and those same kinds of limitations would be widespread across my community to limit any sort of anarchical ideology. In essence, within the use of the 'Bergeron' identity, the creativity behind what makes a human a human falls in favor of total, common, black-and-white identity, or lack of intricacy at all.
I find it interesting to view not only how the lead person in charge, the Handicapper General, would place its restrictions on me, per say, but also how he or she would in general choose to reflect that same sort of demanding, controlling spirit upon the rest of my surrounding community. Within this post, I'll be looking at 2 different parts of myself that would be handicapped, and then I'll compare it with the rest of the people whom I surround myself with.
First, I'm a swimmer. In the world of 'Bergeron,' my capability would put me ahead of those who are physically incapable of moving through the water. Thus, in the cases of flooding, storms, or need to cross a larger body of water, I would be at a huge advantage in comparison to the rest of the community. Thus, I would reflect the idea of physical advantage, putting me ahead of the rest o the community and making me 'unequal.' I would, like the rest of the physically advanced, be carrying around weights and plates around my body, making me weaker and on-par with the others.
Second, I'm a poet. Creativity in this universe seems to have a larger handicap required for termination than many other pieces of the communal puzzle. Hence, the main character, with a memory far superior to his ignorant wife, is tortured repeatedly with a small sound in his ears to destroy any sort of physicality that reflects his past. In my mind, this same sort of independent thought process would be mirrored in trying to reflect emotions within poetry. Whether or not I would be measured and tortured with the same sort of sound treatment, I don't know, but there would be some sort of mental handicap placed on my ability to form intricate sentence structure and imagery.
These countermeasures taken against those with some sort of positive output in comparison to the remainder of the community are steps by those in power to control any sense of rebellion possible within the population. Gruesome and vicious, maybe, but the reasoning makes sense when put within the context of dystopian thought and rationality. The development of a dystopian ideology relies heavily on control of the population, and thus, taking down those with some sort of mental or physical drive seems logical, and in a sense, moral.
But this falls short. In my last post, I talked about the American right to private security and unwarranted seizure. I think the context of seizure can be reflected in the mirroring image of personal identity, where the government's limitations on the rights of the individual cannot go beyond protected American rights, and then, cannot break any kind of natural law to what being a human entitles. Thus, when the government of 'Bergeron' incapacitates an individual because he can put words together to make a poem, it strips away the core essence of what drives him mentally, and takes away the one thing that makes him unique to the rest of the ignorant society giving in to government control.
Within my high school, the pressure for success and drive for athletic ability reflects that of a small college. Its a high-playing, intense academic and athletic environment that embodies the idea of making college students out of high school students. So, if 'Bergeron' was reflected in the mindset of my high school, the use of mental handicap would increase tenfold, as the GPAs and integrity of students would need to fall in order to be on-par with the other educational programs across the nation. As a result, what makes my high school unique would fall to required, unmotivated standards.
The government of 'Bergeron' makes an effort to destroy the strong and equalize the weak, preventing rebellion and setting a commonality between members of the nation. Those in power have control over the handicaps that such people receive. I have specified what my limitations would be, and those same kinds of limitations would be widespread across my community to limit any sort of anarchical ideology. In essence, within the use of the 'Bergeron' identity, the creativity behind what makes a human a human falls in favor of total, common, black-and-white identity, or lack of intricacy at all.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Propaganda and Human Rights
'Propaganda' is an attempt by a large corporation, body of people, or group to sway the minds of multiple individuals to believe a certain thing or ideology. Used both for good and not-good intent, propaganda, especially in the modern world, is everywhere. From politics to advertising to fast food to management, there is propaganda surrounding us day in and day out, with the media taking advantage of popular opinion and understanding by making one believe something they may not want to. In theory, this is terrible, an example of a mass corporation taking away the protected minds of the individuals of society. However, under certain circumstances, this same ideology could easily be twisted to become an important, good feature in society.
In context, propaganda sucks. There's no other way to say it. The idea of a mass corporation to understand a certain piece of information is not only a single detriment to the right to human privacy and constitutional protecting, but also breaks the fourth amendment of the right to search and seizure when the government is allowed to open up into our personal lives. There isn't a single situation when the government forcing the public to believe a NEGATIVE ideology could ever be sufficient. Take the example of the Nazi party in antebellum Germany. You have the government, hence the ruling corporation, of Germany promising a rise in public voice and freedom so long as the minority is blamed at the root of the problem. What was the resultant? 6 million innocent deaths. Probably more. Under most common context, propaganda is disgusting.
However, looking at it from the context of Utopia, it's genius. Propaganda might single-handedly be the most crucial concept in the formation of a Utopia. Within the hands of a single individual, the idea of convincing an entire public that there's a certain truth to modernist belief is the easiest way to maximize total control of public belief and understanding. Not only can this be done through fear and provocation, but in essence, this entire system may single-handedly be able to take 50,000 men and women and make them believe the exact same thing. Going back to my previous post, it takes common, united, socialistic belief that supports the understanding and formation of a unified society. With propaganda, it seems totally necessary that it would be used within the confines of a utopian breakthrough.
Now, this argument breaks apart like a crack when you apply the philosophical construct of 'Utilitarianism.' This philosophy, primarily ethics-driven, states that the most ethical activity is the one that ensures the most happiness. This is the same prospect that defended the community in 'Those Who Walk Away from Omelas.' Going under this context, the argument could be shifted both ways, and I'll analyze them both in the following paragraphs:
Yes: If the context of the situation is to ensure positively-driven citizens who are willing, and able, to follow the guidelines of the society, then utilitarianism will support the concept. Unlike the Nazi party, if the community were to utilize mass propaganda as a support system to give good reasons for supporting the government, and if there were no violent cost, such as the suffering child in 'Omelas,' then the Utilitarian argument says that propaganda could be a necessary piece of this society.
No: If maximum happiness is being given in exchange for a violent action that suppresses human quality and condition, such as the child suffering in 'Omelas' or the restriction of free-thought and expressions within Kurt Vonnegut's 'Harrison Bergeron,' the human condition is being broken in exchange for corporate value and proficiency. In this case, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the entire society does not feel universal protection; the utilitarian would not support it.
I will attack this concept from my own ethical standpoint. I don't feel like propaganda could ever be a necessary, nor effective, tool within the community of any sort of nation, whether utopian, socialist, or capitalist. I see dominant control of a massive corporation FORCING the singular belief of an ideology to be inherently wrong, because the thoughts of an individual are protected under the first amendment of the constitution, as well as the human right to privacy and individual thought. Thus, when a corporation tries to infringe both of those rights, I see it as antimoral, and cannot support it under any conclusion thereof.
In context, propaganda sucks. There's no other way to say it. The idea of a mass corporation to understand a certain piece of information is not only a single detriment to the right to human privacy and constitutional protecting, but also breaks the fourth amendment of the right to search and seizure when the government is allowed to open up into our personal lives. There isn't a single situation when the government forcing the public to believe a NEGATIVE ideology could ever be sufficient. Take the example of the Nazi party in antebellum Germany. You have the government, hence the ruling corporation, of Germany promising a rise in public voice and freedom so long as the minority is blamed at the root of the problem. What was the resultant? 6 million innocent deaths. Probably more. Under most common context, propaganda is disgusting.
However, looking at it from the context of Utopia, it's genius. Propaganda might single-handedly be the most crucial concept in the formation of a Utopia. Within the hands of a single individual, the idea of convincing an entire public that there's a certain truth to modernist belief is the easiest way to maximize total control of public belief and understanding. Not only can this be done through fear and provocation, but in essence, this entire system may single-handedly be able to take 50,000 men and women and make them believe the exact same thing. Going back to my previous post, it takes common, united, socialistic belief that supports the understanding and formation of a unified society. With propaganda, it seems totally necessary that it would be used within the confines of a utopian breakthrough.
Now, this argument breaks apart like a crack when you apply the philosophical construct of 'Utilitarianism.' This philosophy, primarily ethics-driven, states that the most ethical activity is the one that ensures the most happiness. This is the same prospect that defended the community in 'Those Who Walk Away from Omelas.' Going under this context, the argument could be shifted both ways, and I'll analyze them both in the following paragraphs:
Yes: If the context of the situation is to ensure positively-driven citizens who are willing, and able, to follow the guidelines of the society, then utilitarianism will support the concept. Unlike the Nazi party, if the community were to utilize mass propaganda as a support system to give good reasons for supporting the government, and if there were no violent cost, such as the suffering child in 'Omelas,' then the Utilitarian argument says that propaganda could be a necessary piece of this society.
No: If maximum happiness is being given in exchange for a violent action that suppresses human quality and condition, such as the child suffering in 'Omelas' or the restriction of free-thought and expressions within Kurt Vonnegut's 'Harrison Bergeron,' the human condition is being broken in exchange for corporate value and proficiency. In this case, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the entire society does not feel universal protection; the utilitarian would not support it.
I will attack this concept from my own ethical standpoint. I don't feel like propaganda could ever be a necessary, nor effective, tool within the community of any sort of nation, whether utopian, socialist, or capitalist. I see dominant control of a massive corporation FORCING the singular belief of an ideology to be inherently wrong, because the thoughts of an individual are protected under the first amendment of the constitution, as well as the human right to privacy and individual thought. Thus, when a corporation tries to infringe both of those rights, I see it as antimoral, and cannot support it under any conclusion thereof.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
'The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas' and Ethics
"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" reflects an ethical dystopian scenario: in exchange for a glorious society filled to the brim with revelation, happiness, party, and good-spirited nature, a small child is malnourished, mistreated, abused, and psychologically deteriorated to make him sub-human. The rest of the community is aware of this child's suffering, and because of this, has the ability to leave this 'utopia' at any time they wish, and in turn, will leave the paradise behind for a world of lesser value.
So, how ethical is this story exactly?
I'm not expert on philosophy, but I'll approach this topic from two different formats: one, from a Kantian perspective of ethical understanding, and second, from a utilitarian perspective, and analyze the differences between the theories.
According to Kant, this is simply inhuman. Kantian theory relies on a set of values and barebone essentials that we as humans, no matter the circumstance, must understand as well as perform within the confines of our grasp. To Kant, there's a required sense of motherhood to the care of a child, where no matter the cost or external output, every child deserves a supposed 'motherly touch.' Hence, Kant would not only walk away from Omelas, but in the same way, try to destroy it. It preserves the concept of false happiness provided through another's suffering, mirroring the concept of 'one must die for a million to survive.' Within the confines of Kantian theory, this child is being denied the basic of human essentials, rotting in its own filth, without the care of a single human being, and because of this, the conscious of the entire city is put to shame, put to disgust, and thus, the action of torturing the child for preservation becomes gruesome and beyond unethical.
The utilitarians have a separate perspective on the theory of suffering. Utilitarianism is the idea that whatever maximizes pleasure must be the most ethical, objective action. In this case, it is only 1 child put to suffering, and the child will not perish, but rather be taken care of in the most minimal fashion by the surrounding community. As a result, the rest of Omelas gets to live a life of prosper and happiness, and only bears the weight of guilt upon the suffering of the child if they choose to. If one chooses to ignore his inner conscious and allow the happiness of the surrounding community to make life worth living, and they understand the consequences of taking care of the child, they not only serve no harm, but the suffering of the child is the best thing for the community. In exchange for one small bit of hurt, the many others, with the option to leave whenever they wish, maximizes the level of output pleasure, and the action, to them, becomes morally obligated.
Personally, I value the Kantian perspective. To an extent, the ability to leave whenever one wishes gratifies a personal opinion on the value of suffering. But the care of a child rests on maternal gratitude and personal understanding of the morals of a mother's care, and the perspective of childhood being a time of understanding the external and creating a grasp of the surrounding atmosphere. When a child is taken away from said experience, they are reduced to less than human, understanding the basics of nature from an animalistic perspective. Thus, the complexity of understanding is taken away, and it is no better than abusing an animal who doesn't know any better for the sake of self-gratification, and at its barren core, has no moral obligation.
To thus, I see the Omelas people as, from an ethical perspective, cruel, inhumane, and unimaginably barbaric.
Friday, January 23, 2015
The Definition of 'Utopia'
Before we can understand the concept of a 'Dystopia,' the concept of a 'Utopia' must first be idealized. Utopia is a 'perfect' world, a place where there is perfection in every sense and uniformity unmatched by surrounding forces and atmospheres. A perfect setting for such a place would depict uniformity across its board, where there is no plot hole, no pitfall, no small piece of contradictory evidence to be found. Thus, everyone's form of utopia is different, with each one being different according to the thoughts, theories, and opinions formulated within the mind of an individual. For this blog, here is my depiction of a Utopia:
The location of said utopia would be an island in a vast ocean, shaped like a star with 5 major points and harbors within the sea. As such, there would by 5 bays, each one watched by a guard tower on both sides of the points of the star. Thus, there can be imports and exports, but there cannot be any sort of fugitive or illegal crossing into the territory. The edges of the star are more flat, and the center is more mountainous, full of snowcaps and higher planes. Thus, there are farms on the outsides of the mountains, cities with factories and industries on the edges of the star, and trade routes and paths throughout the mountain range.
Trade typically takes 1-2 months by foot to have interaction between cities. However, thanks to modern communication and airline travel, airborne travel can be done within a few hours, with oil mines in the mountain range being harvested by each city. Each city carries an equal distribution of central power, with a mayor of each city and a group of citizens who keep regulation and judiciary power, both of which are voted on by the common public. There are no political parties; each one follows a socialistic-ideology of free power and taxation, with low, but not zero, rates on power and consumption, and common perception and delegation on laws, custom, and city issues.
Every citizen has a job that supports the outcome of the community. Education is public for all citizens through high school, and colleges provide outlet majors for all walks of curriculum, from teaching business to law firms to medicine to education and such. As well, if one wishes to skip college, they are offered easier, but lower paying, blue-collar jobs to maintain the sense of power and energy across the star. There is no property tax, but there is income tax, higher for those with higher education, but not at the same differential rates. Everyone pays taxes, and there is no unemployment, because there are always job opportunities even at the lowest blue-collar level.
In terms of citizen rights, there is no marriage. However, legal couples can be separated by age at a maximum of 5 years, with the youngest partner being 17 years of age or older, in order to prevent criminal offenses such as pedophilia or adultery. If a couple wants to spend their lives together, it is perfectly accepted by the state. But there is no binding by marriage, because the rights of people to spend time together should be dictated by them, not by a code that warrants lawyers, money, and custody rights. However, if the couple is to bear a child, it is especially frowned upon by the community for them to split apart, and one parent is decided by grand jury over custody of the child. However, since there is no legal splitting of marriage, if the couple is happy and wishes to bear a child, then society is all for it. As well, same-sex couples are completely legal and supported within the communities.
Religion is an open book. There are temples, holy precincts, but a singular religion is not defined. There are laws regarding the legality of certain religious actions, and there are restrictions on how far actions can be taken in promotion of singular religious ideology. However, the right to free speech under the laws of each individual city are protected, so anyone may practice the religious undertones they feel necessary. Thus, the openness of philosophical thought over the existence of a higher being may be practiced, and religious undertone serves no purpose within the politics and expressions of government action.
When a person dies, the family, extended and domestic, talks to the local government over the rights of the funeral. Usually, it is taken care of by a religious specialist, and said specialist will perform a ritual based on the religious aspects of the family who lost the loved one. If that person has no family, a generic ritual by the specialist will be taken care of depending on the practiced religion, athiest to Islam to Christian. Death is seen to be celebrated, but it is taken care of with a procession and a service, followed by a reception, and is not a lavish time, but rather a time of reflection and personal wonder.
As of now, this is the sort of utopia I see when I think of the terminology. I will not base all of my views of a utopia on the past 6 paragraphs, but many of my ideas of the concept of a perfect society is embodied within them, and thus, I wait to see the visions of many other authors in the view of what the opposite of this society seems to be.
The location of said utopia would be an island in a vast ocean, shaped like a star with 5 major points and harbors within the sea. As such, there would by 5 bays, each one watched by a guard tower on both sides of the points of the star. Thus, there can be imports and exports, but there cannot be any sort of fugitive or illegal crossing into the territory. The edges of the star are more flat, and the center is more mountainous, full of snowcaps and higher planes. Thus, there are farms on the outsides of the mountains, cities with factories and industries on the edges of the star, and trade routes and paths throughout the mountain range.
Trade typically takes 1-2 months by foot to have interaction between cities. However, thanks to modern communication and airline travel, airborne travel can be done within a few hours, with oil mines in the mountain range being harvested by each city. Each city carries an equal distribution of central power, with a mayor of each city and a group of citizens who keep regulation and judiciary power, both of which are voted on by the common public. There are no political parties; each one follows a socialistic-ideology of free power and taxation, with low, but not zero, rates on power and consumption, and common perception and delegation on laws, custom, and city issues.
Every citizen has a job that supports the outcome of the community. Education is public for all citizens through high school, and colleges provide outlet majors for all walks of curriculum, from teaching business to law firms to medicine to education and such. As well, if one wishes to skip college, they are offered easier, but lower paying, blue-collar jobs to maintain the sense of power and energy across the star. There is no property tax, but there is income tax, higher for those with higher education, but not at the same differential rates. Everyone pays taxes, and there is no unemployment, because there are always job opportunities even at the lowest blue-collar level.
In terms of citizen rights, there is no marriage. However, legal couples can be separated by age at a maximum of 5 years, with the youngest partner being 17 years of age or older, in order to prevent criminal offenses such as pedophilia or adultery. If a couple wants to spend their lives together, it is perfectly accepted by the state. But there is no binding by marriage, because the rights of people to spend time together should be dictated by them, not by a code that warrants lawyers, money, and custody rights. However, if the couple is to bear a child, it is especially frowned upon by the community for them to split apart, and one parent is decided by grand jury over custody of the child. However, since there is no legal splitting of marriage, if the couple is happy and wishes to bear a child, then society is all for it. As well, same-sex couples are completely legal and supported within the communities.
Religion is an open book. There are temples, holy precincts, but a singular religion is not defined. There are laws regarding the legality of certain religious actions, and there are restrictions on how far actions can be taken in promotion of singular religious ideology. However, the right to free speech under the laws of each individual city are protected, so anyone may practice the religious undertones they feel necessary. Thus, the openness of philosophical thought over the existence of a higher being may be practiced, and religious undertone serves no purpose within the politics and expressions of government action.
When a person dies, the family, extended and domestic, talks to the local government over the rights of the funeral. Usually, it is taken care of by a religious specialist, and said specialist will perform a ritual based on the religious aspects of the family who lost the loved one. If that person has no family, a generic ritual by the specialist will be taken care of depending on the practiced religion, athiest to Islam to Christian. Death is seen to be celebrated, but it is taken care of with a procession and a service, followed by a reception, and is not a lavish time, but rather a time of reflection and personal wonder.
As of now, this is the sort of utopia I see when I think of the terminology. I will not base all of my views of a utopia on the past 6 paragraphs, but many of my ideas of the concept of a perfect society is embodied within them, and thus, I wait to see the visions of many other authors in the view of what the opposite of this society seems to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)