On Humanity, Part II

Today I learned of a most intriguing trend: from today and into tomorrow, Facebook users are being asked to change their profile pictures to images of cartoons in order to raise child abuse awareness.


While I find nothing wrong with this premise or action, I staunchly refuse to change my image in this fashion.


Allow me to explain: 


The idea behind this movement is to replace human images on Facebook with images from a nostalgic past, when we were all children. This is intended to raise awareness for those children who have no nostalgic past to look back to, only memories of pain.


Indeed, this is all well and good. However, I believe that the solution to child abuse- and many other issues besides- lies not in facing the past, but in facing the future. In this idea, I argue that Facebook users should be encouraged to post more human faces rather than less.


Referencing an earlier post of mine ["On Humanity", 13 November 2010], it is vital to recognize all people as inherently human. This includes both abuse victims and abusers alike. The trouble with this movement is that it skews public perception towards deifying abuse victims and demonizing abusers.

Now, realize that I am fully and wholeheartedly against child abuse and any other form of abuse. However, polarizing the public view against the abusers will cause exorbitant punishment and end up causing more harm than good in the long run.

Like Osama bin Laden, abusers are still human. They too have favorite foods, childhood crushes, special talents, and much more.

In light of this, the only complete solution to the problem of abuse is to recognize both sides as human. Abusers, as much as they seem to be, are not monsters, but likewise victims, as much as they seem to be, are not angels. The solution then is to reconcile both sides humanely, but absolutely.

Only in this way can abuse be solved once and for all.

And in this I say: Post human images. Post as many as you can. Inundate the Internet with human images, and soon we will learn to recognize all as human.

On Humanity

A few nights ago, I decided to kick back and watch a movie- The Hunt for Red October, in fact. I loaded the DVD, pushed the play button and sat down on the sofa with a bottle of lemon-flavored seltzer water. Red October is one of my favorite movies, so naturally I sat there, happy as a clam. But then one scene in particular jumped out at me and really struck me. It wasn't one of the big, epic fight scenes, or even a particularly important scene. In fact, the movie might have worked without the scene at all. However, the scene is there, and I believe it to be one of the most beautiful scenes ever put on film. It goes as follows:


The captain of the hyper-advanced Russian submarine Red October, Marco Ramius, and his first mate Borodin are in the captain's cabin, talking. Ramius and the crew intend to defect to America in order to relinquish the Red October. Russian and American naval fleets, however, are closing in on them with orders to sink them on sight. Ramius reclines in his bed, staring into the middle distance. Borodin sits in a chair off to the side.

Borodin: Do you think they will let me live in Montana?

Ramius: I would think they'll let you live wherever you want.

Borodin: Good. Then I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?

Ramius: I suppose.

Borodin: No papers?

Ramius: No papers, state to state.

Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in . . . Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives.

Ramius: Oh, at least.

The entirety of this scene is over in less than two minutes, but I contend that they are the most profound two minutes in all of modern cinema.



I believe that this scene was intended to be a throwaway gag about Soviet misconceptions about life in America. Bear in mind that this movie was released in 1990, when the Soviet Union was still in (tenuous) power. The Soviet Union was beginning to open up to outside influence, but it was still severely limited. Also, this scene makes Borodin's death towards the end of the film poignant as he utters his final line: "I would like to have seen Montana...."


However, the cabin scene transcends all of this. I believe the cabin scene really speaks for the nature of humanity.


In the 1950s, America was thoroughly caught up in the Red Scare. Any mention of Communism was regarded as blasphemy, and any hint of Communism in daily life would be hounded upon and persecuted. America blindly hated Communism, almost solely on the basis that it was un-American. The Soviet Union was also guilty of this. Any mention of capitalism would likewise be regarded as blasphemy. Likewise, the Soviet Union blindly hated capitalism because it was not the Soviet way.


In effect, both sides caricatured the other in the worst possible way. Both sides slandered the other, and both sides demonized the other.


Now think about the cabin scene. All Borodin wants is a simple life in Montana. He wants a home, a wife, and some rabbits. Simple, inconsequential things like that. He wants to live a normal, simple life, free of oppression. In other words, Borodin is human. He is not some caricature of anti-capitalist hatred, but rather a fully fleshed-out, three-dimensional, real-life human. He has human wants and human needs. He is, in fact, just like us.


It is true that America has just about gotten over its anti-Soviet fever. However, a new fever has quickly risen to take its place: anti-terrorist. 


Think of Osama bin Laden: How many two-dimensional caricatures have we seen of him in some anti-American fury? How deeply is the image of Osama orchestrating some attack in some cave seared in our conscious?


We only think of Osama as the embodiment of anti-American evil. How many of you have devoted even a second of thought to the fact that Osama might have a favorite food or a childhood crush or that he's totally awesome at volleyball?


Let me be totally, unequivocally clear: I do not support Osama bin Laden in any way. The 9/11 attacks were the most evil, hateful, and tragic acts in modern history, and bin Laden is unquestionably very, very wrong for committing these and many other attacks.


That being said, that doesn't make him any less human. Question is, why don't we see him as human?


The answer can be found here: http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html


In short: We as humans have a limited capacity for caring. Outside of a very limited social sphere- our "monkeysphere" (about 150 people), we cease to recognize people as human. We see them instead as cardboard cutouts and caricatures. This leads to unfounded fear, and from there, war.


Perhaps the key to world peace lies in recognizing everyone as inherently human, not just hate-filled bags of unholy fury. True, the human mind is only capable of caring about 150 people. But if one man cares about 150 people, and those 150 people care about their own 150 people, eventually everyone is included in the "monkeysphere".


So get out there and start caring, dammit.

On Politics Versus Government

The recent midterm elections provide a fascinating insight into the inner workings of American politics. In these elections, there was a profound conservative shift in the spectrum. Formerly Democratic regions, such as Massachusetts and northern Illinois, voted Republican instead. Also, people expressed their dissatisfaction with Democratic president Barack Obama, where two years ago he was supported almost unanimously. This radical change in behavior from 2008 to today highlights a major conflict in leadership: that of politics versus government.

Politics and government are nowadays practically synonymous. However, there is a subtle, yet profound difference between the two.

Government is the creation and execution of law for a body of people.

Politics is the act of pandering, through donation or lawmaking, to one or more distinct bodies of people in order to gain votes.

Politics has a tendency nowadays to interfere with the due process of government. How many acts of legislation have you seen go into the bottomless pit of bureaucracy simply because some politicians decided to oppose it for the sake of party loyalty? How many compromises have had to be made in order to satisfy every individual group of people that could possibly exist?

Too many, right?

However, politics does not come without precedence. We see this same sort of behavior even as far back as the Roman Republic, where certain candidates for office (populares) would appeal directly to the public in order to gain support. In more recent history, we have dramatic examples from the years after the American Revolution. There were the extensive debates and compromises that went into the creation of the Constitution in order to satisfy both the Northern states and the Southern. These represent only a tiny fraction of the history of politics.

Now, is politics necessarily a bad thing? Not at all! Sometimes compromises must be made in order to preserve law and order, and politics ensures that all voices are heard. However, when politics becomes more of a hindrance to the process of law than an aid, then it is a bad thing.

Likewise, government is not always a good thing. Men are imperfect, so there must be some way of ensuring peace and order in a state. This comes from government. However, absolute government can all too easily become totalitarian, which is decidedly awful.

Question is, how does one distinguish between good politics and bad? The answer is common sense. Plain and simple. People must exercise good judgement when they go to the polls, and not just blindly vote for someone because of party ties. We must put in the effort to extensively research the platforms of candidates, weigh all possible options fairly, and decide for ourselves who the best candidate is. Otherwise, government simply cannot function effectively.

Now, I am not calling for violent revolution by any means. I am simply asking that you stop to think about who you are voting for before you punch that ballot. The future of America is at stake.

On Stories

It is all too easy nowadays to slide through life without paying attention to the things around us. We go about our daily lives, thinking about nothing save what we must do, taking in nothing. I will not say that we must stop and smell the roses, although that is true. Everyone and their kid sister talks about that. What I will discuss is something that goes much, much deeper.

We must learn to create and appreciate stories in our lives.

Ever since the dawn of civilization- perhaps even the dawn of man- human beings have related stories to one another. This has been one of the trademarks of the human race: to be able to create fictitious series of events and relate them in speech or song. Over time, stories became even more widespread, giving rise to the tales of Gilgamesh, Spartacus, and Beowulf, to name a precious few. As time progressed, and as technology progressed, stories became so prevalent that they seem to have faded from the conscious mind. Sure, we have great authors and filmmakers and songwriters, but when was the last time you consciously created a story of your own?

I thought so.

Before you protest, let me make one thing clear: there is a difference between a story and pure fancy. Are you willing to relate your thoughts, in every detail, to everyone you know? If not, then your thoughts are pure fancy.

This is what I believe to be the barest working definition of a story. Teachers will say that a story also needs direction, conflict, arc, climax, resolution, and a number of things besides. I say: not always! It depends on the needs of the story and the storyteller. A story does not need to be as complex as the works of Dostoevsky, Dickens, or Proust; nay, it can be very simple indeed.

But what constitutes a story? Anything- literally anything. All you need to do is imagine an object and a situation, and you're home free.

Let's take a pencil, for instance. A seemingly simple, bright yellow pencil with an equally bright pink eraser at one end and a shiny black graphite tip at the other. Do you see it?  Now think. Perhaps the story might come from the wood it's made of- what things might have happened in the jungle it came from? What things might have died to produce the carbon in that tip? Or maybe the story might not come from the pencil itself. For instance, who might have written with that pencil? Perhaps some great visionary, writing a speech that will be remembered for generations? If so, what about? Or maybe some rapscallion businessman, writing away millions of dollars in a swish of the pencil? If so, why?

Do you see where I'm getting at?

As I said before, a story can come from literally anywhere. Perhaps the question is simply finding inspiration. To remedy that, here is a little thought game I like to call the Relation Game.

Its premise is simple: think of an object- anything will do- and then think of something related to that object, even if only tangentially. Once you have that, think of something else related to the second object. And then a fourth, related to the third object. And so on.

E.G.: Let's start with the Crimean War.

Crimean War ==> Russia ==> Vodka ==> Vodka Myths ==> Mythbusters ==> Discovery Channel ==> Shark Week ==> Sharks ==> Sherman's Lagoon ==> ...

The idea is to be as convoluted in your relating as possible. Try it and see where you end up. I guarantee you'll be surprised.

If that doesn't work, try this: take any piece of music, with words or without, and sit down and listen to it. I mean really listen to it. Listen to every chord, every note, every syllable. When you're done, listen to it again. And again. And again.

When you've finished with that, do some thinking. Why did the composer write that piece of music? What story was he trying to convey? Why did that singer choose those words to convey this message? What story was he trying to convey?

But here is the ultimate question: why bother? Why bother coming up with stories? Why bother taking the time to think of things that will never happen?

Well, why not? What harm will it do? If nothing else, at least it provides a little entertainment in the endless drag that is life.

On Technology

Technology. There's nothing in the world quite like it. Technology is useful. It can save lives. It can connect people a world apart. It can provide instant updates on current events. It can entertain us in the blink of an eye and the push of a button. Moreover, it's absolutely everywhere.

Hardly a day goes by without seeing someone glued to a cell phone or computer. In fact, many times that person has been you. I know I've been that person. One might see them texting while crossing the street, or maybe talking on a cell phone while driving. One may also not see them as they sit all day in front of a computer screen.

In recent days, people have had more reason to spend their time with technology. This is because technology keeps getting better and better. More applications are available for cell phones and social networks daily. Phones and computers are able to do more and more impressive things. People spend more time enjoying these features.

If one asks around, it would be found that more and more people say that they would "die" without their phone/iPod/computer/whatever. This is truly a grave prospect for humanity. While the statement is generally meant facetiously, death by non-connectedness is not a subject to be tossed around lightly. If it continues to be treated as such, it may eventually become true.

I am by no means predicting an eventual takeover of the world by sentient machines. I am instead cautioning against mass technology addiction. People can spend hours a day- even entire days- hooked up to some form of technology rather than getting exercise, spending time with friends or reading a book. Public health suffers greatly because of conditions such as sleep deprivation and obesity. Advances in stimulants only make the problem worse.

Let us look at an analogy. If you look at an older model of cell phone, you will see that it is big, bulky, heavy, unimpressive, and generally unappealing. However, that cell phone is virtually indestructible. You may throw it into oncoming traffic, drop it into a toilet, or even hit it with a baseball bat, and it will still work perfectly. If you look at a newer model, you will see that it is sleek, compact, light, impressive, and generally appealing. However, that cell phone is ridiculously delicate. Even so much as sneezing on it will upset some vital circuitry, causing it to fail catastrophically.

If you were to look at people from the beginning of the twentieth century, you would notice that their lives were virtually free of the luxuries we enjoy today. Yet those same people survived through the greatest tragedies and hardships humanity has ever faced. If you look at people from the beginning of the twenty-first century, you would see that we have become paranoid, weak, and generally cowardly. There is a definite trend here: As technology becomes more advanced, humanity becomes less advanced. If this trend continues, we could see the common person relying on frivolous technology for their very survival by the beginning of the next century.

There is a solution to this, however. I prescribe a rounded tablespoon of actual social contact, followed by a shot of nature and exercise. Take at least once weekly, more or less often as necessary. Follow this plan, and humanity may actually move forward with its technology. It is, after all, what sets us apart from animals. Don't let technology make us animals ourselves.