The challenge with empowering people with a scientific approach in determining evidenced based fact from subjective bias is that it requires the investment of reasoning at the very base of all supporting information. This journey is one shared by scientists of every discipline true to the field of their study. For without a full understanding of all contributing evidence, no credible theory could be offered. Continue reading
The entropic style of adaptation for any species of sociality is intrinsic to said species as continually adapting to the environment supporting its very existence. Without this fundamental connection, no organism could survive in its own environment without an ability to adapt to even the slightest change in the environment.
It is the environment that shapes the abilities and functions of all species dwelling within. Likewise, the composition of any environment is defined by all things contributing to said environment. No separation could be implied, for the existence of a plant is as critical a component of an environment as any animal species within the same environment — all are players. Continue reading
A social entity is an organization as functioning in response to the pressures from a social construct. These include organizations who manufacture products or offer services — public or private — their existence or function can be non-essential to a species of sociality.
If a social entity fails to function sustainably, it is without the universal right to continue said unsustainable function. For an unsustainable social entity to receive continued support from a social construct — defines said social construct as unsustainable — inherently detrimental to the capabilities of a species of sociality. Continue reading
Previously, I read an article that suggested growth in human population will likely devastate the resources of earth (amongst other ill effects). This article sourced a report from a NASA-funded study on the likely collapse of a given civilization where social imbalance between the poor and the rich existed. Below the article were typical public comments. Some comments suggested overpopulation was the reason for unsustainable human activity. Interesting reasoning, if it were not completely untenable. The following was my response:
The perspective that population is the obstacle for a sustainable species is highly subjective in a social frame, and relative in a scientific frame. To point the finger at overpopulation is to suggest the Earth’s eco-system is there to absorb the punishment of humanity, and our species has simply grown too large for the earth to cope. Expectedly, the subjective nature of society is void of merit in supporting any known sustainability model. To correct any imbalance in sociality, the nature of human society must align with the principals of a sustainable model.
Universal Equilibrium will always drive towards a state of maximum entropy. It discriminates nothing — not even humans. So yes, humanity may suffer a catastrophic correction as a species; however, as sentient beings we carry the capability to protect ourselves from our own actions — much like wearing a helmet when riding a bike, or a seatbelt when driving a car. We need to put measures in place protecting us from our global activities. Identifying the 1% as the culprit for our troubles is misguided. The 1% exists as a byproduct of our current social model. How does it go?: “With great power comes great responsibility”. So ask yourself, if you had unlimited financial means, would your actions be any different than those of the 1%?
The sustainable activity of the 1% are statistically disproportionate to even a basic sustainability model. Winning the lottery is a prime example of where our society tends to take aim: big house, lots of cars, heated swimming pool… you get the picture. The truth of the matter is, those of the 1% did not win the lottery (a one-time event). They leveraged the mechanisms within society to reach excessive financial gain. The activities of those who won the lottery are somewhat dissimilar, as the underlying nature of how those individuals got to the 1% mark is part of their persona. They are there [because] they worked to get there (the journey), and that means they will use their enhanced financial means to protect that enhancement out of entitlement. No merit is being made for entitlement, just that those of the 1% have a distinct advantage to influence their position in society, and that means protecting that advantage will automatically become the first seatbelt/helmet they put in place. It’s blind human nature.
Human nature influenced from social evolution can be sustainable. Unfortunately, there are fundamental contradictions in how our current society operates. No less does it make sense for low-income housing to exist next to a casino, than it does for society to reward it’s members by reinforcing the mechanisms that spawned the 1% — suppressing the composite ability of society as a whole. It’s a self feeding cycle akin to linseed oil in a cotton rag: the more it dries, the more it heats up. It quickly boils down to Universal Rights as a species. Until universal rights are socially observed, policies of human societies will stumble reactively behind the activity of those who are charged with its welfare — and ultimately the direction of our species.
Whenever that day is, that is my last, I will have one clear regret. This would be the sizeable disappointment in how far humanity has advanced.
With so much potential literally squandered away by seemingly more important activities of a species far less evolved, it’s depressing to see where we could have been compared to where we are.
Is there hope for us as a species? I would like to think so. Given enough time, humanity will have every chance it needs to learn how to do everything wrong at least once — no doubt at great cost. Unfortunately, humanity as a collective organism is riddled with every type of social disease — mired in disinformation and burdened from legacy ideology — all of which is soaking wet in fear.
Humanity needs not a clean energy model from fusion, nor the return of a deity in order to solve our problems. Humanity needs only to collectively recognize each issue at hand. To have a variance in understanding, is the beginning of conflict, and the variance in understanding stems from the absence of information. For in the absence of information, subjective interpretation quickly takes its place.
How can a species survive its own condition when it fails to recognize its condition? It’s been said: “If all insects on Earth disappeared, within 50 years all life on Earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the Earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish”. Ironically, of the 50 years given for life to end from the absence of insects, humans would be “voted off the island” almost immediately.
I feel shame for what’s seen today. It’s likely my hair will turn white long before the majority of humanity reaches a consensus on right & wrong. To expect change short of this point requires a global event — shedding enough social disease past the tipping point. I have hope for that day.