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/
Monday, April 13, 2015
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)