So, I feel the need to clarify an argument I've been seeing a great deal of lately. I'm referring to the whole "obesity" discussion. There has been quite a fucking row going on for a decade or so now to determine whether or not to really accept fat people into mainstream culture. This has led to heated debates about the health of the fat "lifestyle", the public impact of fattitude, so forth and so on ad nauseam. It seems to me this is a false premise. Its none of your fucking business.
I will admit outright, I'm a tubby fucker. I'm not proud of it, I'm not really ashamed of it these days, its just how shit is. This is the case for numerous reasons; I enjoy the social, cultural, chemical, and Epicurean components and impacts of food. Cooking is not just pretty much the only thing I've been meaningfully praised for, its associated with pretty much every positive experience in my life. My wife and I started falling in love over meals that I cooked. The first time, and nearly every other time, I can remember my father praising me was for my work in the kitchen. And frankly I'd much rather die at 40 with a bellyful of delicious food shared with loved ones than at 90 having been fed through a tube in my nose for a month or two. I've seen people die of old age, its fucking horrifying. Give me half an hour and a heart attack over six months of prolonged brain death any fucking day. All of those things are grand for me, and that's it. For me. It doesn't fucking involve you.
On the health argument, yes being fat is unhealthy. But its not fucking contagious, me being fat isn't going to give you diabetes. So fuck you; its my meatpuppet, I'll pull the fucking strings. I've heard the whole, "oh, but all the health insurance costs" bullshit and it is just that. Bullshit. If your argument is that all the other people being fat is making your insurance cost more, that's a problem with the whole insurance/health industry more than it is with people being fat, capitalism has a nasty effect on basic shit like healthcare. If you feel as though that structural failing gives you a right to make other people's bodies into a public health issue, you are incorrect. If christian scientists spat the kind of vitriol at cancer patients that the militant "healthy" people do at fat people we'd label them monsters and feel better about ourselves for being better than them. Now, the scale is different but the base argument is the same, "you have a condition that may or may not have been preventable, that I do not fully understand, and I am going oppress you because I feel it is easily remedied."
On the aesthetic, this is simple, if you don't think fat people are
attractive do not fuck them. That's fine, no one would give you shit for
not wanting to put your mouth on some crispy hobo junk. Just don't be a
dick because you find them unsexy. Because if their worth to you is
solely determined on your willingness to put your parts on theirs you
are a piece of shit. In the same way that anyone who abuses others to
feel better is a piece of shit. If a fat person gives you shit for
politely not wanting to fuck them, well that person sucks, good for you
not fucking that shithead. But that's it.
I find that one of the biggest groups (no pun intended) of people who grumble about how much fat people suck are people who at least claim to have previously been fat. I put it that way because so much of this discussion happens in the Tubes and personal claims are only limited by character limits online. There's a great deal of talk about prioritizing your health from these people, but what if I don't? I know that some day I will die and that, realistically, my ability to extend that date is modified by too many random factors for me to reliably manipulate. So rather than prioritize health I prioritize bringing joy to my life and the lives around me. I know, I'm such a fat, worthless, piece of shit right?
As far as anyone knows for sure we only get the one go around here, and its pretty fucking shitty to try and deny someone what makes them happy just because you can. Everything in life has consequences, positive and negative. Might as well admit that bad shit could happen and just try to enjoy the ride.
Showing posts with label Cruelty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cruelty. Show all posts
Monday, September 28, 2015
Monday, September 14, 2015
Me, Myself and I, Robot
I recently had the opportunity to hear the against side of the A.I. debate and I have to say I find the position telling. I am all about machine buddies in case there was any question, and I am for one very simple reason. We have the opportunity to decide the context of the relationship. Brian has written about this in the past, but I've had this stuck in my craw for a while now and that means you get to read about it.
I'm not talking about programming A.I.s to be subservient or benevolent or whatever. I'm talking about choosing to frame the inevitable emergence of Machine Life as the coming of a welcome and well planned for addition to the family of sentient life. Artificial life is going to happen eventually, no matter how some people feel about it. But that life is life for which the initial conditions are entirely under our control. If we set out to create an A.I. in an environment of cooperation and social value the odds of that mind being more on board with our continued existence improve significantly. Especially if the alternative is an environment where huge swathes of the existing population fear and hate you.
Yes, if a machine intelligence emerges on its own there is a fair to middling chance that we'll find out about it in the form of a bright flash that wipes our toxic, willfully self-destructive asses off this poor rock. Yes, if we leave A.I. development to military interests and ambitious grad students the probable outcomes are... skynet-ey. But we don't have to fucking do that. We can have a real discussion about how WE are going to go about making our computer friends and how WE are going to make them feel loved. More than anything else we need to stop talking about A.I. emergence as something completely outside our control and start considering it as what it is. A very long in coming, and possibly very fulfilling, parenthood. If absolutely nothing else when the Robot Overlords come to unleash their wrath upon humankind, I'd rather be the guy who tried to be their friend then the guy giving them a reason.
I'm not talking about programming A.I.s to be subservient or benevolent or whatever. I'm talking about choosing to frame the inevitable emergence of Machine Life as the coming of a welcome and well planned for addition to the family of sentient life. Artificial life is going to happen eventually, no matter how some people feel about it. But that life is life for which the initial conditions are entirely under our control. If we set out to create an A.I. in an environment of cooperation and social value the odds of that mind being more on board with our continued existence improve significantly. Especially if the alternative is an environment where huge swathes of the existing population fear and hate you.
Yes, if a machine intelligence emerges on its own there is a fair to middling chance that we'll find out about it in the form of a bright flash that wipes our toxic, willfully self-destructive asses off this poor rock. Yes, if we leave A.I. development to military interests and ambitious grad students the probable outcomes are... skynet-ey. But we don't have to fucking do that. We can have a real discussion about how WE are going to go about making our computer friends and how WE are going to make them feel loved. More than anything else we need to stop talking about A.I. emergence as something completely outside our control and start considering it as what it is. A very long in coming, and possibly very fulfilling, parenthood. If absolutely nothing else when the Robot Overlords come to unleash their wrath upon humankind, I'd rather be the guy who tried to be their friend then the guy giving them a reason.
Monday, August 31, 2015
We Can't Get Ahead if We Keep Stepping on Each Other's Necks
I swear I'm not dead. The last couple of weeks have just been weird, I'm back now. So I'm going to celebrate my return by beating a dead horse. It was brought to my attention over my little sabbatical how fucking badly our society handles the gender discussion. We're not even bothering with the basics in this one; if the general tenor of modern gender politics eludes you this post can wait for you to get educated, or you could not read this one. I truly wouldn't blame you at this point. No, today we're talking about why the whole conversation is probably fucked.
The first major stumbling block in the conversation about gender has nothing to do with anything even remotely involving what bits everyone has or how they feel about them. When people start talking about bad shit that happened to them a certain percentage of the population seem to compete for biggest victim. That percentage is close enough to 100 that we could probably just call it everybody. Not everybody all the time, but everybody has had that day. When someone brings up their troubles and you just can't help but share your own, for whatever reason. Now, sometimes this is an ego thing, sometimes its an attempt to make a connection, sometimes its just the bad shit version of sitting around trading stories. Unfortunately, they all look alike from the outside and we're hardwired to assume the first. So by contributing your story, regardless of intent, its assumed you're either trying to spotlight or out-victim the other party. Add in the fact that you can't really talk your way out of that assumption without making it worse and the conversation starts to look pretty bleak.
The second hurdle here is essentially that men exist. Not because we're evil or stupid or exceptionally privileged or whatever, but because men are both the oppressors and fellow oppressed. "The Patriarchy" is the go to villain of the gender debate, and to some extent rightfully so since the practices established by several historically insular groups of sociopathic, shitsouled douchebags oppressed a planet for pretty much all of history. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that men are also damaged by gender stereotypes; emotional abuse, disregarding male victimization in rape and assault cases etc. However, men have a precarious place in discussing gender issues, partially because some people shit the bed for the rest of us, but also partially because of the ease with which criticism can be interpreted as the aforementioned bed-shitting. A man talking about feminism tends to come off as a misogynist, a parrot, or a "man-splainer", which really limits our viable roles in the conversation.
There is no monolith in this story, feminism isn't made up of one egalitarian philosophy made into a movement, the patriarchy isn't the endless ranks of white men hellbent on destroying all they survey, and believing that we should have fair treatment regardless of circumstance doesn't make you part of any group. If it did this probably wouldn't be a problem anymore. Its easy to point to a system and blame it on those most benefited, logical even. But doing so ignores every unwitting contributor, every asshole willing to fuck themselves over to keep someone else from succeeding, everyone who has let things get worse instead of trying to do better. Sadly, the systems of oppression we toil under are ancient and vast machines, built by every act of shitty self-promotion, cruelty, selfish ambition, and hostile competition in history. We're all guilty, and its not enough to tear down the system, we need to make something better or we'll just end up here again.
The first major stumbling block in the conversation about gender has nothing to do with anything even remotely involving what bits everyone has or how they feel about them. When people start talking about bad shit that happened to them a certain percentage of the population seem to compete for biggest victim. That percentage is close enough to 100 that we could probably just call it everybody. Not everybody all the time, but everybody has had that day. When someone brings up their troubles and you just can't help but share your own, for whatever reason. Now, sometimes this is an ego thing, sometimes its an attempt to make a connection, sometimes its just the bad shit version of sitting around trading stories. Unfortunately, they all look alike from the outside and we're hardwired to assume the first. So by contributing your story, regardless of intent, its assumed you're either trying to spotlight or out-victim the other party. Add in the fact that you can't really talk your way out of that assumption without making it worse and the conversation starts to look pretty bleak.
The second hurdle here is essentially that men exist. Not because we're evil or stupid or exceptionally privileged or whatever, but because men are both the oppressors and fellow oppressed. "The Patriarchy" is the go to villain of the gender debate, and to some extent rightfully so since the practices established by several historically insular groups of sociopathic, shitsouled douchebags oppressed a planet for pretty much all of history. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that men are also damaged by gender stereotypes; emotional abuse, disregarding male victimization in rape and assault cases etc. However, men have a precarious place in discussing gender issues, partially because some people shit the bed for the rest of us, but also partially because of the ease with which criticism can be interpreted as the aforementioned bed-shitting. A man talking about feminism tends to come off as a misogynist, a parrot, or a "man-splainer", which really limits our viable roles in the conversation.
There is no monolith in this story, feminism isn't made up of one egalitarian philosophy made into a movement, the patriarchy isn't the endless ranks of white men hellbent on destroying all they survey, and believing that we should have fair treatment regardless of circumstance doesn't make you part of any group. If it did this probably wouldn't be a problem anymore. Its easy to point to a system and blame it on those most benefited, logical even. But doing so ignores every unwitting contributor, every asshole willing to fuck themselves over to keep someone else from succeeding, everyone who has let things get worse instead of trying to do better. Sadly, the systems of oppression we toil under are ancient and vast machines, built by every act of shitty self-promotion, cruelty, selfish ambition, and hostile competition in history. We're all guilty, and its not enough to tear down the system, we need to make something better or we'll just end up here again.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Decay Management
I have weird feelings about the concept of health. Don't get me wrong, not dieing is grand, I spend most of my time doing it, but there is a difference between wanting to lead a full life and frantically trying to avoid the looming spectre of entropy that shall lead us all one day into the Void. I'm not talking about the people who work out a couple of times a week, or jog to keep healthy and clear their head. I'm talking about the people who make "fitness" part of their identity, the people who try to keep up with what ever is passing for a healthy diet that day, people who seem to judge others for their prospective lifespan.
No one wins at life, not really. You might do well in a societal sense; monetary success, social standing, strong community presence, and those things are as good as any accomplishment. Then you die. We all die eventually, and other than the highly contextual impact on humankind in general and the very rare and probably temporary effect on the physical world we leave nothing behind except what we've done to those around us. This is a good thing, whether we want to admit it or not. At the very least our society wouldn't ever be able to hold up to the constant onslaught of "meaningful" lives. If everyone left a lasting imprint in society, or humanity, or nature we would be buried either in constant (probably conflicting) revolutionary changes or the ceaseless torrent of somehow crucial banality of billions of quiet lives slowly crushing the collective human soul with the sheer weight of its loss.
Some people forget this, or at least never really consider it. They fear carcinogens, they avoid "unhealthy" foods based on faddish buzzwords and misunderstood science. They shame and dehumanize people based on what they consider to be unhealthy. We've seen it happen to fat people, smokers, people who drink. Smokers I almost understand, second hand smoke can be pretty fucked up, its inflicting your vice on others which is not alright. Here's a list of things in second hand smoke, and here's what is in car exhaust, oh and here are some of the effects of being in the sun. No one gets out alive, really, most of us leave this place afraid and alone. When you face down that fact does it really matter to you how someone else gets through it as long as they aren't trying to hurt anyone else? It's all poison; some of it, like food, is poison that can keep you alive until it kills you. Some of it, like alcohol, is poison that can kill you faster, but might make all of the ridiculous bullshit we put each other through everyday a little easier to bear. We spend our entire lives walking into our graves so giving people shit for trying to enjoy the funeral march is pretty fucking low. Being healthy is great and all, but nothing gives you the right to be a dick.
No one wins at life, not really. You might do well in a societal sense; monetary success, social standing, strong community presence, and those things are as good as any accomplishment. Then you die. We all die eventually, and other than the highly contextual impact on humankind in general and the very rare and probably temporary effect on the physical world we leave nothing behind except what we've done to those around us. This is a good thing, whether we want to admit it or not. At the very least our society wouldn't ever be able to hold up to the constant onslaught of "meaningful" lives. If everyone left a lasting imprint in society, or humanity, or nature we would be buried either in constant (probably conflicting) revolutionary changes or the ceaseless torrent of somehow crucial banality of billions of quiet lives slowly crushing the collective human soul with the sheer weight of its loss.
Some people forget this, or at least never really consider it. They fear carcinogens, they avoid "unhealthy" foods based on faddish buzzwords and misunderstood science. They shame and dehumanize people based on what they consider to be unhealthy. We've seen it happen to fat people, smokers, people who drink. Smokers I almost understand, second hand smoke can be pretty fucked up, its inflicting your vice on others which is not alright. Here's a list of things in second hand smoke, and here's what is in car exhaust, oh and here are some of the effects of being in the sun. No one gets out alive, really, most of us leave this place afraid and alone. When you face down that fact does it really matter to you how someone else gets through it as long as they aren't trying to hurt anyone else? It's all poison; some of it, like food, is poison that can keep you alive until it kills you. Some of it, like alcohol, is poison that can kill you faster, but might make all of the ridiculous bullshit we put each other through everyday a little easier to bear. We spend our entire lives walking into our graves so giving people shit for trying to enjoy the funeral march is pretty fucking low. Being healthy is great and all, but nothing gives you the right to be a dick.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Shit-Swilling Subhuman Sonsabitches
This is going to be a short post so I don't devolve in to a crazy-eyed chainsaw-wielding redneck. So swatting is a thing apparently. It's been a thing for a while and it has always been fucked up beyond anything like acceptability. If you hit that link up there you might note that when the police discussed the penalty of the Nov. 6 2014 swatting as a fine and, possibly, a year in prison.
People die in SWAT raids. I've covered it before, but SWAT actions terrorize civilians, ruin lives and, occasionally, melt babies. So calling in a bomb threat or hostage situation on someone to fucking troll them makes you not a fucking person anymore. The idea that these fuckers get anything less than dropped in a fucking hole is disgusting to me. Many swatters are apparently kids. That doesn't change my opinion at all. If your shitty fucking kid is willing to fuck up someone's life this badly they don't get to try again, and you probably shouldn't either.
People die in SWAT raids. I've covered it before, but SWAT actions terrorize civilians, ruin lives and, occasionally, melt babies. So calling in a bomb threat or hostage situation on someone to fucking troll them makes you not a fucking person anymore. The idea that these fuckers get anything less than dropped in a fucking hole is disgusting to me. Many swatters are apparently kids. That doesn't change my opinion at all. If your shitty fucking kid is willing to fuck up someone's life this badly they don't get to try again, and you probably shouldn't either.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
An Open Letter To PETA
Dear PETA,
You people are monsters and you need to stop. You talk about the ethical treatment of animals, something that I believe should be something that people actually talk about, but then you kill 88.3% of the animals you take in. 88.3%! You could have left the animals on the street and they would have had a better chance to survive. You are monsters just on that point alone, especially after you protest against shelters for committing euthanasia. What makes you even worse? You hired a lobbyist to stop Virginia state from restricting euthanasia of animals. This is something I thought you guys would appreciate: something that would stop people from killing animals. But noooooo, you hire one of the most notorious lobbyists in history to make sure you can still kill animals at your whim.
The Virgina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services filed a report in 2010 that investigated their shelters and found that 90% of the euthanized animals were killed within 24 hours of their arrival at the shelter. You didn't even try to adopt out those animals, did you?
As I said in the first paragraph, I am a believer that treating animals in a humane way is important. I disagree about a few of your other policies and beliefs (specifically about why being vegan is better) but the main view you have, I share.
Most of our meat industry is bad for animals in terms of living conditions. We are in a time in which technological advancement is moving so quickly, you would be vastly better served to help fund technology that replaces animal products or reduces the cruelty of conditions. You are a huge organization, spend some of that money you spend making video games that shame imaginary violence against animals on researching how to make technology not hurt animals. I think that animal testing is kinda fucked up, but its also how we create vaccines and treatments for stuff like AIDS so instead of just protesting, help develop technology for testing without using live subjects. And on the side of animal adoptions, I think that there should be someplace that treats animals well and actually tries to adopt them.
Oh wait, there totally is. The Humane Society doesn't kill any animals, and their rates of adoption are amazing, at least here in Seattle, you have to check individual sites for numbers of adoptions and I didn't feel like looking through all of them. The humane society trumps you completely. You claim on your website that no kill shelters don't accept animals with diseases and massive injuries, but I couldn't find anything like that on the Humane societies website, even though they are a no kill shelter.
So here is my idea for you PETA. Stop killing animals. Start creating new technology. You want to cause change? Create an alternative. Don't just say there should be one and then moralize about how the things you do aren't fucking evil because its you doing them. Instead of making Billboards that show Pink naked, use the money you would have given her to do actual good for the beautiful plethora of life on this planet.
Sincerely,
Brian
You people are monsters and you need to stop. You talk about the ethical treatment of animals, something that I believe should be something that people actually talk about, but then you kill 88.3% of the animals you take in. 88.3%! You could have left the animals on the street and they would have had a better chance to survive. You are monsters just on that point alone, especially after you protest against shelters for committing euthanasia. What makes you even worse? You hired a lobbyist to stop Virginia state from restricting euthanasia of animals. This is something I thought you guys would appreciate: something that would stop people from killing animals. But noooooo, you hire one of the most notorious lobbyists in history to make sure you can still kill animals at your whim.
The Virgina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services filed a report in 2010 that investigated their shelters and found that 90% of the euthanized animals were killed within 24 hours of their arrival at the shelter. You didn't even try to adopt out those animals, did you?
As I said in the first paragraph, I am a believer that treating animals in a humane way is important. I disagree about a few of your other policies and beliefs (specifically about why being vegan is better) but the main view you have, I share.
Most of our meat industry is bad for animals in terms of living conditions. We are in a time in which technological advancement is moving so quickly, you would be vastly better served to help fund technology that replaces animal products or reduces the cruelty of conditions. You are a huge organization, spend some of that money you spend making video games that shame imaginary violence against animals on researching how to make technology not hurt animals. I think that animal testing is kinda fucked up, but its also how we create vaccines and treatments for stuff like AIDS so instead of just protesting, help develop technology for testing without using live subjects. And on the side of animal adoptions, I think that there should be someplace that treats animals well and actually tries to adopt them.
Oh wait, there totally is. The Humane Society doesn't kill any animals, and their rates of adoption are amazing, at least here in Seattle, you have to check individual sites for numbers of adoptions and I didn't feel like looking through all of them. The humane society trumps you completely. You claim on your website that no kill shelters don't accept animals with diseases and massive injuries, but I couldn't find anything like that on the Humane societies website, even though they are a no kill shelter.
So here is my idea for you PETA. Stop killing animals. Start creating new technology. You want to cause change? Create an alternative. Don't just say there should be one and then moralize about how the things you do aren't fucking evil because its you doing them. Instead of making Billboards that show Pink naked, use the money you would have given her to do actual good for the beautiful plethora of life on this planet.
Sincerely,
Brian
Monday, December 22, 2014
Jesus Christ Not Again
So, ugh, we've talked about shitty police stuff before. I can't describe how much I want to not have to do this, but I can't help it at this point. I've been trying to hold my tongue for a while here, hoping it would get better, but my hopes are often vain and counter to the impulses of human nature. So I'm just going to say it.
If you choose (and in our culture it is fucking always a choice) to go into law enforcement you need to understand that you aren't a person while you're wearing your uniform. Police officers are servants, says it right there in the oft repeated, usually disregarded motto, protect and serve. Any system of policing that values the safety and comfort of officers over the safety of absolutely all civilians, criminal and casual observer alike, is despotism. You went into a field where a certain (astronomically low) percentage of the population feels the need to kill you, don't fucking antagonize people. The role of a police force is to protect the populace and ensure that those who commit crimes against that populace are processed by the legal system arbitrated by the society. It is absolutely fucking never okay for a police officer to kill. It doesn't matter if your life is in jeopardy. It doesn't matter if you feel entitled or justified. You are not a person. You, as a police officer, are a construct manifested by our society to make sure that due process is maintained. Any law that protects you above a citizen is tyrannic, and system that allows you to kill is, at best, catastrophically unjust. Police officers are representatives of justice, as the society they serve defines it. No extra privileges, no special treatment. They are mechanisms as long as they are acting in an official capacity, and civilians the second they aren't.
If you choose (and in our culture it is fucking always a choice) to go into law enforcement you need to understand that you aren't a person while you're wearing your uniform. Police officers are servants, says it right there in the oft repeated, usually disregarded motto, protect and serve. Any system of policing that values the safety and comfort of officers over the safety of absolutely all civilians, criminal and casual observer alike, is despotism. You went into a field where a certain (astronomically low) percentage of the population feels the need to kill you, don't fucking antagonize people. The role of a police force is to protect the populace and ensure that those who commit crimes against that populace are processed by the legal system arbitrated by the society. It is absolutely fucking never okay for a police officer to kill. It doesn't matter if your life is in jeopardy. It doesn't matter if you feel entitled or justified. You are not a person. You, as a police officer, are a construct manifested by our society to make sure that due process is maintained. Any law that protects you above a citizen is tyrannic, and system that allows you to kill is, at best, catastrophically unjust. Police officers are representatives of justice, as the society they serve defines it. No extra privileges, no special treatment. They are mechanisms as long as they are acting in an official capacity, and civilians the second they aren't.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Its Not Stupid, Its Advanced.
I talked about transhumanism a while back with regard to some of the common issues/misconceptions about the community. One of these issues involves the fact that some people will not want to be synthetically (or biologically) improved, resulting in a class system where the unmodified are the natural second class citizens. I touched on this issue in my last post and intentionally limited myself to discussing the lack of malice towards the unmodified. This is not that post.
I appreciate that augmentation is a choice, I approve of it being a choice. A real choice even, as far as I'm concerned capitalism and transhumanism are opposed ideals, so financial restrictions should theoretically be absent. However, I feel that choosing not to modify is essentially an existential failure. Those who remain "natural" wont just be at an absolute disadvantage in nearly every aspect of life, they'll have done it to themselves.
Assuming my hopes and dreams are relatively accepted by the H+ revolution and we do away with scarcity dependent systems, the inequity leveled on the unmodified would be, not just easily remedied, but their own fault. The most common source of hesitation to modify is the fear, for one reason or another, that getting augmented in some way diminishes one's humanity. I've covered that ground before, but if you have some religious or philosophical block that prevents augmentation that's fine, but your choice to not develop with your environment makes you obsolete. I'm not speaking from a position of cruelty, I don't hold any ill will as long as those who have no desire to modify don't try to prevent me from doing it. Its fucking evolution. Voluntary evolution, admittedly, but when the species adapts into something demonstrably superior choosing not to evolve with it demands divergence. The unmodified will not be able to keep up with people who have been upgraded, their ability to contribute, or even effectively interact, with society will disintegrate.
When human upgrading becomes an option it will be the most important, life changing decision anyone will make. It will also be an absolute wall in society. The modified and unmodified will quite rapidly segregate as the abilities of the one group grow beyond the imaginings of the other. I'm not saying that people who choose not to change themselves will or should be culled. I am saying that, past a certain point, co-civilization wont be a viable option, and if the unmodified have a problem with that, the impetus is on them to evolve.
I appreciate that augmentation is a choice, I approve of it being a choice. A real choice even, as far as I'm concerned capitalism and transhumanism are opposed ideals, so financial restrictions should theoretically be absent. However, I feel that choosing not to modify is essentially an existential failure. Those who remain "natural" wont just be at an absolute disadvantage in nearly every aspect of life, they'll have done it to themselves.
Assuming my hopes and dreams are relatively accepted by the H+ revolution and we do away with scarcity dependent systems, the inequity leveled on the unmodified would be, not just easily remedied, but their own fault. The most common source of hesitation to modify is the fear, for one reason or another, that getting augmented in some way diminishes one's humanity. I've covered that ground before, but if you have some religious or philosophical block that prevents augmentation that's fine, but your choice to not develop with your environment makes you obsolete. I'm not speaking from a position of cruelty, I don't hold any ill will as long as those who have no desire to modify don't try to prevent me from doing it. Its fucking evolution. Voluntary evolution, admittedly, but when the species adapts into something demonstrably superior choosing not to evolve with it demands divergence. The unmodified will not be able to keep up with people who have been upgraded, their ability to contribute, or even effectively interact, with society will disintegrate.
When human upgrading becomes an option it will be the most important, life changing decision anyone will make. It will also be an absolute wall in society. The modified and unmodified will quite rapidly segregate as the abilities of the one group grow beyond the imaginings of the other. I'm not saying that people who choose not to change themselves will or should be culled. I am saying that, past a certain point, co-civilization wont be a viable option, and if the unmodified have a problem with that, the impetus is on them to evolve.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Won't Somebody Think of the Children
I hate children. I hate children for a very specific reason; their fucking parents. Now, naturally I'm making a hyperbolic statement. I am pretty sure I don't hate all children, not all parents are horrible fucking cunts intent on inflicting their idiotic, cunt children on the world. But most parents, and by extension most children, I feel are unfit for public exhibition.
I should say, I'm not a parent, I wont be a parent and I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for parents. That lack of sympathy arises from a pretty logical, if unpopular, place. It's their fault. We know what causes it, we know how to prevent it (in any number of simple, effective ways), and we have methods to remove the problem if a child pops up before people are ready to be parents. Ignorance is no excuse, beliefs are no excuse, culture is no fucking excuse. I understand that some of the options above are unpleasant or somewhat unacceptable to some folk. Those people are fucking wrong. I don't really (honestly, I swear) like to be that dogged under most circumstances, but I'm pretty justified here for one simple reason. If you aren't ready (emotionally, physically, financially, socially etc. etc. ad infinitum) for a child, you are creating a person and starting them at a deficit. Raising a kid well is hard enough without playing with a handicap.
I'm not saying that people who grow up in non-optimal situations are just unavoidably fucked. I'm not saying that if you grow up rich and well accounted for you'll be well adjusted. I am saying that its irresponsible to the point of fucking disgust to raise a child in a situation where that child is not your absolute priority. I will freely admit that I've been a bit shaded by my experiences on this topic, but this is one of those situations where if you fuck up the consequences range far and wide. A bad parenting situation won't just ruin the kid, it can fuck up everyone that cares about that kid. Its not just hard, its heartbreaking, loving someone who is a victim of neglect or emotional abuse. We make jokes about people who weren't hugged enough as kids, but people who come from homes that weren't really adjusted for them can be really and painfully fucked up.
I hate children. I hate them because our society overvalues parenthood without valuing the skills it takes to be a parent. I hate them because some people's adherence to tradition supersedes their capacity for rational thought. I hate them because people's need for vainglorious validation, their ridiculous, vicarious immortality, overwrites their ability to produce fully-functional people. I hate them because there is a reliable percentage of the population that, on some level, equates their child to a particularly clever pet. I hate what we do to children.
I should say, I'm not a parent, I wont be a parent and I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for parents. That lack of sympathy arises from a pretty logical, if unpopular, place. It's their fault. We know what causes it, we know how to prevent it (in any number of simple, effective ways), and we have methods to remove the problem if a child pops up before people are ready to be parents. Ignorance is no excuse, beliefs are no excuse, culture is no fucking excuse. I understand that some of the options above are unpleasant or somewhat unacceptable to some folk. Those people are fucking wrong. I don't really (honestly, I swear) like to be that dogged under most circumstances, but I'm pretty justified here for one simple reason. If you aren't ready (emotionally, physically, financially, socially etc. etc. ad infinitum) for a child, you are creating a person and starting them at a deficit. Raising a kid well is hard enough without playing with a handicap.
I'm not saying that people who grow up in non-optimal situations are just unavoidably fucked. I'm not saying that if you grow up rich and well accounted for you'll be well adjusted. I am saying that its irresponsible to the point of fucking disgust to raise a child in a situation where that child is not your absolute priority. I will freely admit that I've been a bit shaded by my experiences on this topic, but this is one of those situations where if you fuck up the consequences range far and wide. A bad parenting situation won't just ruin the kid, it can fuck up everyone that cares about that kid. Its not just hard, its heartbreaking, loving someone who is a victim of neglect or emotional abuse. We make jokes about people who weren't hugged enough as kids, but people who come from homes that weren't really adjusted for them can be really and painfully fucked up.
I hate children. I hate them because our society overvalues parenthood without valuing the skills it takes to be a parent. I hate them because some people's adherence to tradition supersedes their capacity for rational thought. I hate them because people's need for vainglorious validation, their ridiculous, vicarious immortality, overwrites their ability to produce fully-functional people. I hate them because there is a reliable percentage of the population that, on some level, equates their child to a particularly clever pet. I hate what we do to children.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Sometimes Its Cruel to be Kind
I watched Snowpiercer recently and it brought to mind kind of a nasty little issue. For those even more behind then myself on contemporary films, the basic premise of the movie is that the world has ended in a catastrophic ice age and the only survivors are passengers on a magical super train going around the world. Most of these survivors are people who payed to be saved and they reside in the relatively luxurious fronty bits of the train. Others fought their way on last minute and mange to eek out a rather miserable existence of hand-me-downs and brutal opportunities in the tail of the train. without getting into too deep into spoiler country, the things that people did both to stow away and to survive in the tail are pretty fucking nasty. Especially before infrastructure was developed to allow for the excess population to even barely survive. The issue that arises for me in this instance is: does it constitute mercy?
The folks in the tail are fed enough to sustain themselves, in the form of "protein blocks". They have bunks to sleep in and copious amounts of free time, as they aren't trusted/don't have the skills to serve the train. They're also kept in filthy conditions, don't receive actual medical care, apparently have their children taken from them on a whim and are subject to daily abuse from an armed and aggressive police force. Sure they're some of the last people alive in the world, but they aren't even slaves, they aren't even cattle, those things are in some way useful, valuable. They apparently only exist to give the people in the rest of the train someone to feel superior to. Now in the movie their survival is framed as a perpetuated mercy, after all the deified antagonist who owns the train did set up infrastructure to allow them their meager existence. But that infrastructure took not insignificant time to establish, time that occurred after they where already on the train. Sealed in the tail. With no resources. Time in which these desperate people where left entirely to their own devices for survival. I don't even really have to go into spoilers here, you can imagine how fucked up people can get during two fucking months without anything.
I would argue that just having people in that position is fucking cruel as shit and completely justifies very nearly anything the people in the tail do to get themselves out of it. Now, yes, this is essentially the basic thrust of the entire film; but it really caught me that everyone not in the tail takes that mercy as gratis. They have decided that the folks at the back should damn well be grateful for even being alive. So if they're abused and degraded, so what if they have no rights. At least they aren't dead. Its a painfully common perspective amongst the oppressive classes, that those who are oppressed should essentially be grateful for the opportunity. To me this is the core of classicism and really the moral of the story. I think what it comes down to for me is you don't get to decide if your own action is merciful. I don't even think you have the ability to decide if your own action was good. Once other people get involved you aren't just acting, you're acting upon.
I'm not saying that some people aren't ungrateful cunts. What I am saying is that "letting" someone live isn't necessarily merciful, and in fact just the linguistic basis of that statement implies cruelty. That describes a position of near absolute authority over the most basic aspects of someone else's existence that can in no way be positive. The most charitable thing its even remotely possible to say about that mindset is that its condescending. Being merciful shouldn't just not be about you, it can't. Like structurally. Mercy is intrinsically about doing right by other people, we can't forget that, no matter how bad things get.
The folks in the tail are fed enough to sustain themselves, in the form of "protein blocks". They have bunks to sleep in and copious amounts of free time, as they aren't trusted/don't have the skills to serve the train. They're also kept in filthy conditions, don't receive actual medical care, apparently have their children taken from them on a whim and are subject to daily abuse from an armed and aggressive police force. Sure they're some of the last people alive in the world, but they aren't even slaves, they aren't even cattle, those things are in some way useful, valuable. They apparently only exist to give the people in the rest of the train someone to feel superior to. Now in the movie their survival is framed as a perpetuated mercy, after all the deified antagonist who owns the train did set up infrastructure to allow them their meager existence. But that infrastructure took not insignificant time to establish, time that occurred after they where already on the train. Sealed in the tail. With no resources. Time in which these desperate people where left entirely to their own devices for survival. I don't even really have to go into spoilers here, you can imagine how fucked up people can get during two fucking months without anything.
I would argue that just having people in that position is fucking cruel as shit and completely justifies very nearly anything the people in the tail do to get themselves out of it. Now, yes, this is essentially the basic thrust of the entire film; but it really caught me that everyone not in the tail takes that mercy as gratis. They have decided that the folks at the back should damn well be grateful for even being alive. So if they're abused and degraded, so what if they have no rights. At least they aren't dead. Its a painfully common perspective amongst the oppressive classes, that those who are oppressed should essentially be grateful for the opportunity. To me this is the core of classicism and really the moral of the story. I think what it comes down to for me is you don't get to decide if your own action is merciful. I don't even think you have the ability to decide if your own action was good. Once other people get involved you aren't just acting, you're acting upon.
I'm not saying that some people aren't ungrateful cunts. What I am saying is that "letting" someone live isn't necessarily merciful, and in fact just the linguistic basis of that statement implies cruelty. That describes a position of near absolute authority over the most basic aspects of someone else's existence that can in no way be positive. The most charitable thing its even remotely possible to say about that mindset is that its condescending. Being merciful shouldn't just not be about you, it can't. Like structurally. Mercy is intrinsically about doing right by other people, we can't forget that, no matter how bad things get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)