#we tend to see the negatives due to the capitalist world we live in and are educated in

[suncatchr]

Heyo if u wanna talk abt ur ocs can u tell me abt the newest ones (or at least the ones that r new to me which is all of them on the last pic of ur oc post I think?) :3

omggg thank you for asking :3 this is long sorry i haven’t organised my thoughts about them yet ahjfklsa but here we go

before i can talk abt rain n evie i have to explain the universe with kes, amaya, and rio. im sure you remember them :3 but umm you said they were based on pacific rim and i don’t know anything abt pacific rim fhjlafnj sooo i made a bunch of stuff up. soooo there’s a parallel universe/alternate dimension full of people and like, monsters. the alt. universe people r testing ways to break into our dimension and open the door permanently so that both dimensions are their domain. the... city...? that the story is set in is like a capitalists’s dream, split harshly between rich and poor with no middle class. the poor faction of the city that will be named soon is the one responsible for keeping the other-dimension-ers out of our dimension, most if not all of them are responsible in some way for keeping their area safe from those tears in the ozone layer. they in return are given technology, money, and supplies from the rich faction. those guys do next to nothing, they operate like any other city where everyone has jobs and pays their dues to the government. they are very strict about who they let into the city; they don’t want outsiders to know about their dimension problem lest they stop the warriors from doing their jobs or do something to make the tear bigger etc etc. they also don’t want poor people in the city, even if they’re responsible for everyone’s safety. I’m thinking of making the story a really obvious allegory similar to older-fashioned dystopian novels like animal farm and brave new world because i’m obsessed with those in concept. so i think supporting characters will be one-dimensional caricatures of types of people in society, and only the MCs will have nuance. this also makes it easier for me to write side characters ;3

so kestrel and amaya are siblings mostly born and raised into monster-fighting. you know when there’s a factory or whatever in town that most people in that city work at? there’s one of those but it’s like... a firehouse for monster fighting. they mostly live and sleep there, they’re fed and clothed here for free so long as they fight and they’re both content with that. I’m not sure what happened to their parents yet but they’re probably dead. not everyone’s parents are dead, some people have families that they live with at the... compound, these two are just tragic and whatnot. families are encouraged to fight together in duos or trios so that loyalty makes them fight smarter and harder to protect each other. when they’re not at the compound, like if they have shifts off or whatever, they live in an abandoned subway station and steal power from the government who’s unaware that that track is unused 😌

so as far as them as individuals, i kept the planets that u based them off of :3 kestrel is based off mars and mars is the planet of action, energy, motivation, temper. kestrel is moody and temperamental, but their choices are never made without careful consideration. they’re a quick thinker and that makes them confident, so they never back down from a challenge. they have a hard time masking their emotions and it’s easy to see what’s going on in their head. they’re hard to embarrass, though, and they’re very confident in most of their assertions. they’re impatient and crabby, but they aren’t at all shy.

amaya is based off venus, so she’s more emotionally rounded than her sibling and more interested in the poetry of life. she’s very expressive and polite, and she has a thing abt maintaining her image. she’s a bit materialistic and self-centred, focused on her looks and her space, but she’s realistic in her material n sensual desires because al things considered she lives in a subway station. she knows what to expect from life, or at least she thinks she does, and is just as confident in her own assertions as kestrel. she’s stubborn and argumentative for that reason, but her confidence makes her a natural leader and people flock to her for advice and assistance. she loves this.

and adrion, based off earth, comes into their lives later. rio used to live on the rich side of town until a second dimension creature escapes the notice of the warriors (i swear they won’t actually be called “warriors” forever 😭) and destroys his part of the city. his family is alright, but the destruction makes him feel like he could do a better job than whoever’s currently there. he leaves his family to join up with the. the compound, and when asked to find a partner to fight with, chooses amaya and kestrel because they’re a top-of-their-class team who are always talking about how things could be better. at first, they don’t want him bc they’re lone wolves and they do not like to be told what to do. but he’s a tough fighter and he’s got the motivation to be good, so they let him stay on the team. as far as personality, rio is really chill and understanding, often willing to let other people’s faults slide. as long as he’s allowed to do what he wants to do, other people can have their way. he’s cheerier than the other two but he’s quieter and more in-the-background. his strong will makes him sensitive and he refuses to change his mind often because he’s quite naive and gullible, making him easy to trick and take advantage of which makes him insecure. this makes him prone to snapping when people put pressure on him.

now for rain and evie. i originally created them as prototypes for their own narrative but the story seemed really similar to my other stuff so i scrapped it BUT i thought the characters themselves worked in this story instead so i kept them :3. rain and evie are brothers who were initially raised in a fighting ring. they live on the poor side of town but they never worked for the compound. they make a living by gladiator fighting, people pay to come in and bet on them and obviously they’re paid for winning fights. rain is an extremely adept fighter and usually manages to beat opponents with brute strength. evie is smaller and less physical and usually fights by using the opponent’s strength against them. they’re simultaneously popular and unpopular in their neighbourhood as they’re like. cool for being good in the ring but they’re really weird otherwise. they’re aggressive, angry and irrational, they act like they’re always in the ring. rain is more sociable and capable than evie, who tends to be reactive and angry. he doesn’t want to be here, but rain is more content in his abilities, so he handles mostly everything so that evie doesn’t have to be responsible for anything. they end up moving on from the ring after evie takes on an opponent that rain tried to tell everyone that he could never beat. evie takes a violent blow to the head that leaves him comatose, and rain spends a huge chunk of money for a piece of technology that replaces the damaged areas of evie’s head and functions in its place. no one tells rain, though, that the thing he put in evie’s head is technology from the other dimension. after the two leave the ring, they decide to make themselves useful and fight the monsters that forced them into this life in the first place.

personality-wise, rain is a laid-back, go-with-the-flow kind of guy. he likes to let things take their course and he isn’t much concerned with proceedings outside of himself and evie. he purposefully denies himself negative emotion and usually tries to fake that everything is good all the time. despite this, he’s emotional and reactive and extremely defensive. he doesn’t like to be challenged or made unhappy and in his dream world he and evie are always just hanging out doing what they want and not having to answer to anyone. people often find him charming bc he’s able to finagle most situations into him getting his way, he’s exceptional with people but he doesn’t like them.

evie is more sullen and droopy. he almost always lets rain do all the talking and he usually appears unconcerned with most goings-on because he’s letting rain evaluate the situation. he’s usually inside his own head, daydreaming or fussing. most of his interactions with others are verbal or physical fights bc he’s unsure how to manage himself without rain around and is often willing to fight for whatever he thinks rain would want. he’s independent outside of that, doesn’t like to be told what to do or how to act. not even rain can calm him down when he’s on his soapbox because he truly believes that if he had to grow up a fighting dog he should be allowed to do whatever the fuck he wants. in downtime he’s usually a little bit more uppity than rain but still similarly laid-back and willing to act like things are okay.

the five of these characters r in the same universe and they go on missions together often, though kes and amaya don’t really get along with rain and evie because they’re all so stubborn.

next are niko and andre, who i got from sammy! we got urban fantasy going on here, and i’m thinking of setting it in like. the mid 1800-s. i’m feeling spicy. umm so i think the key thing about this universe is that “hunters” are a species of humanoid monster. this world is spinning with vampires, werewolves, faeries, demons, etc. pretending to be human in order to survive, and hunters are a mimic species that look human but just... aren’t. they have an insatiable desire to hunt and kill (used to be for food but humans make food more easily accessible), but killing humans makes them vulnerable to being found out. killing other monsters is the perfect substitute, plus humans praise them for it. they’re onto each other but they can’t make scenes in human society so they have to dance around each other to do all of their killing in secret.

andre is a hunter living in the shadow of his older sister, angel. she’s a better, more ruthless hunter than he is, with stronger instincts and a greater prey drive. she’s popular with people in town and generally just more charismatic. he really wants to be like her, but he’s klutzy and insecure and his instincts are poor cuz he overthinks them. one day he comes across niko in a bar and, perceiving him to be human bc he has 0 instincts, they get their flirt on. until niko says something that makes andre realise he’s a vampire. embarrassed and ashamed of his attraction, andre tries to turn his feeling of betrayal into murderous instinct, and he can turn that anger into his first solo kill. niko keeps chasing after andre trying to catch his non-murderous attention because he actually really likes him and doesn’t want to let what they are get in their way.

personality wise, niko is a noisy little wisecracker who likes to be popular. he’s a genuinely nice guy and is famous wherever he goes for being wise and helpful. he’s usually pretty optimistic and very charming, especially in bigger crowds where he can fit in. he can be purposefully oblivious and is very good at disguising his feelings and intentions. he’s witty and sarcastic, often masking negativity for the sake of keeping it light.

andre is a straightforward intellectual type who likes to work and create and achieve. he’s intelligent and steadfast and always strives to do his best (which is why being terrible at hunting is upsetting for him). making achievements kind of replaces his understanding of himself, and not being good at things really digs at his self-worth. he’s not much of a people person but he’s not really shy, either. he’s polite and good-natured, though his feelings are quite fragile.

next generation, same universe, next is honour (whose name HAS to be spelled with the u), journey, and solace. resident throuple. honour and solace are hunters, and journey is human. honour was raised in a big home with lots of hunters under the iron fist of like, the mean nursemaid from annie. they hunt monsters as an organised group, but its a violent institution that doesn’t believe in autonomy nor the worth of human lives. humans exist as something to blend into while they exterminate all other monsters. honour stops believing this when she gets older, mostly due to meeting journey. she assumes journey is just going to be vapid and goofy bc he’s a human, but he ends up being a really cool dude who’s just as in-depth as her and she begins to realise how terrible the lessons she was raised on are.

journey’s family were aware that they were often surrounded by monsters and as such were very protective of him and his siblings. journey never gets to go out and do things, and being stuck in the stuffy comfort of his home is not what he wants to do with his life when he knows there are monsters out there. when he and honour hit it off, they decide to run away together, deciding to shed their upbringings entirely by changing their names to the things they want most.

i set this in the 1800s JUST so that i could have honour and journey use the train to run away. not nice public transit trains, i mean they are riding the dirty rusty rails to seek a better life. they intend to ride a long time to make sure that they’re never recognised. on one of the trains they catch to head north, they come across solace, helping him onto the train as he got there a split second too late to catch it. despite his initial gratitude, solace is unpleasant to ride with. turns out he’s been on the run for most of his life and is just trying to find a place to stay where no one will care that he’s a hunter. in human-only societies hunters are known as mimics and are heavily discriminated against if you’re suspected of being one and straight up killed if you are. after living an uncomfortable life and seeing his father killed, solace decides to go from town to town until he finds a place that’s mostly hunters. when honour reveals they’re looking for the same thing, solace decides to go with them. he’s hesitant to give up his name because it was given to him by his parents, but ultimately he wants to leave that life behind and embody comfort and. yk. solace.

haven’t quite figured these three out personality-wise bc i only finished their designs and names in time for posting the art, rip

and lastly my warriors ocs! I decided to make regular fanclans as opposed to using my existing ocs in an au mostly because i didn’t wanna add in random npcs (as it were) to fill the nursery and elder’s den even tho those r important to clan life. so, i made separate ocs, they live in the arctic! summitclan in the mountains, tundraclan in the plains, and glacierclan by the. glacier. the story so far is a murder mystery, cats of all clans are being killed and going missing and no one knows why. while most warriors assume there’s a bear or fox hanging around the territories, the apprentices saw something while they were hanging out that made them decide to investigate deeper...

our mc is snowpaw, a repurposed rp oc fjdkfjld;af. he’s a summitclan cat and he’s known to be strange and standoffish. he seems cold and apathetic about almost everything and it’s hard to see what he enjoys and dislikes. his secretiveness makes it easy for him to investigate the murders, no one ever questions where snowpaw is going or what he’s doing. with his friends and family snowpaw is a little more jovial, he has very dry humour and is also always trying to help

crowpaw is a tundraclan cat. he’s stuck up and big-mouthed, very arrogant little know it all. don’t ever tell him that, though, bc he’s very sensitive and he will cry. he likes to be seen as the best at everything so he dedicates excess time to learning and is actually a very curious and adventurous cat underneath.

swiftpaw is a glacierclan cat. he’s very mature and is often rumoured to be a great deputy choice when he’s old enough. he’s calm and level-headed, a quick-thinking problem solver with a bit of a superiority complex but not one that anyone in his life would be aware of bc he’s so darn polite. the warrior code is important to him and so are rules of daily clan life that reduce conflict in any way.

teapaw is also a glacierclan cat. she, like snowpaw, is a little bit quiet and secretive, the kind of person (..?) that kinda lurks in the back of important things going on rather than offering her voice. she’s a healer’s apprentice and takes a lot of pride in being effective and efficient with all her duties. she’s curious and observant, and shes good friends with her clan’s seer, deadhawk (i split the medicine cat position into two for these clans, healers do doctor stuff, seers talk to starclan), so she tends to be up to date w what starclan says, which helps her and her friends w their mystery.

and finally, breezepaw! he’s a summitclan cat and snowpaw’s bff. he’s kinda clueless and distractable, very much a follower personality as he likes others to decide what’s important for him to do. he’s a quiet cat, but he’s not afraid to speak his mind when the time comes. kinda a goofy jokester dude, but he knows how to read a room and keep quiet when he doesn’t know what to contribute and jokes won’t help. he likes snowpaw because snowpaw’s always confident in what he’s doing and never clowns on breezepaw for not knowing wtf is going on

[whitestonetherapy]

Negativity... (2.9.19)

If you're anything like me, you'll know that sometimes your mind can be your own worst enemy.  

Most of us have times that our mind can't settle - times when we're prone to making just about every 'thinking error' in the book.  Catastrophising, jumping to worst conclusions, making generalisations that are unhelpful, being highly self-critical etc.  We might find ourselves increasingly focusing on the negative side of life and feeling pessimistic.  

When this happens we'll often give more thought to negative situations in our lives.  We might think of all the things that could go wrong at work next month, or dwell on the times we've been treated badly in the past.  Then it's easy to get stuck in a loop of unhelpful thinking.  Roughly speaking, when you focus on the negative, your mood becomes lower, and so you focus more on the negative things. Boom...

The human brain has an inbuilt bias that tends to veer towards focusing on 'negatives', and this is just part of how the human brain seems to work.  We also have a tendency to notice the bits of information that support our state of mind (and so 'the way we see the world').  This means, for example, that if we are in a bad mood we're more likely to remember any unfriendly interactions when we visit our local town.  Dwelling on these unfriendly interactions will reinforce our low mood and may reinforce an idea that "other people are rude to me", and over time this becomes a fixed prediction for how people are likely to treat me in future.  (And so our negative predictions begin to colour future interactions).  

In scenarios like this, friendly social interactions are more likely to be ignored, and we'll assign more focus and attention to the negative experiences we have.  These become 'proof' of our theory about others.

This kind of inbuilt cognitive bias plays a big part in therapy too.  In therapy sessions sometimes people will say "I want to be happy" - something I can definitely understand.  But it is a fact that our brains are not evolved to produce happiness but to focus on survival.  Problem-solving has been the chief concern of the human brain for all of our evolutionary history.  The main goal of the brain is to solve potential problems, to automate tasks and take the need for conscious thinking out of as many of our daily tasks as possible, and to make 'predictions' to ensure we survive.  

This means we have natural default settings in our minds that ensure we allocate much more attention to problems than we do to situations which go according to plan.  It is because of this tendency to focus on solving problems (above, say, counting our blessings), that our perceptions of the world can become quite skewed, often to the pessimistic side of things.  

Hans Rosling (a Swedish researcher) quite famously demonstrated this tendency in a piece of research in 2013.  His research asked the question:  " Has the percentage of the world population that lives in extreme poverty almost doubled, almost halved or stayed the same over the past 20 years?"   Only 5% of respondents correctly answered that poverty has actually halved.  Our bias towards pessimism or a negative appraisal of situations sometimes means we can be really, really wrong...  In fact, this is the case with almost every quality-of-life metric.  Things have improved so much in the last fifty years, and yet the sense of pessimism remains high.

Like moths to a flame, we seem to be particularly drawn to 'problems' in all forms.  In 2014 a study at McGill University examined people's consumption of written news media and looked at the stories participants chose to read in what they thought was an eye-tracking experiment.  What the results showed was that even the participants who said they wanted more good news stories were much more drawn to 'negative news content'.  And in the absence of any sizeable problems, our minds will often work overtime to create some new ones - to find some new angle, some new (hitherto unimportant) issue on which to rest our attention and focus our concerns.  

This is partly due to "prevalence-induced concept change", a theory that suggests that as the prevalence of a problem is reduced, humans are naturally inclined to redefine and broaden the nature of 'problems' themselves.   This means that as things improve all around us, our definition of 'bad news' is just widened to find new things that are bad to report on.  We recast our 'problems' and simply discover a load more of them.  I suppose this is far more common in the developed, capitalist, liberal West  (where to some extent the 'problems' that have made life miserable for countless generations before the last several have now been solved) than in developing nations.  And so we see a recasting of 'problems' in new and unresolvable directions, one example being the current obsessional focus on 'identity politics'. Closer to home, I recently spent many hours looking at YouTube reviews for a new iPhone, obsessing about a choice between LCD or OLED screens as though something serious depended on my choice (both screens are far better than anything remotely possible even five years ago - and both are effectively identical to the normal eye).  Perhaps it fills the time in the absence of survival-critical problems...

We are also subject to something called "availability bias".  This bias was noted in a study by Tversky and Kahneman in the 1970's, whereby respondents seriously overestimated the frequency of crime, due to the overwhelming reporting of crime on the news.  Random violence or sudden, explosive bad things make the news because they shock and happen suddenly.  Good news - such as acts of kindness - are common and tend to form part of the clement background conditions in which life unfolds.  The good news doesn't have the power to make a sudden splash that changes perceptions that, say, warfare, accidents or disasters have.  Bad news is sudden and explosive, and so is exaggerated in our minds.  Real tragedies are thankfully rare, but never in history has each tragedy had such global coverage.

So, bad news arrives in ways that are far more eye-catching than good news. Then our mind focuses on problem-solving in ways that exclude more positive appraisals of the situation.  In evolutionary terms, it simply makes sense for us to dwell more on risks.

Add to this that people tend to think in relative and not absolute terms.  It matters how you are doing compared to others around you, far more than it matters how you are doing in a general sense.  This is why, whatever goal we reach, we experience a short burst of euphoria before quickly resetting and then taking for granted our new situations. It's why, for example, acquiring a new car only brings temporary satisfaction, before the problem becomes, say, a small scratch we've noticed on the rear bumper.  It's why a big promotion and pay rise quickly leads to wondering whether the person next to you was given an even bigger pay rise.  When things get better in our lives, this relativizing behaviour means we quickly reset our expectations and focus on the next set of problems.

During my years trading derivatives, I remember we would leave the trading floor and go to one of the pubs in Leadenhall Market after the close of the trading day.  One topic always came up - "losing trades".  You'll always find traders talking at great length about losing trades.  In fact, many traders remember their losing trades and losing days for far longer than they remember profitable days.  It's the days that everything goes against you that stick in your mind.

This is a long way round of saying that it's actually very hard to overcome your tendency to dwell on the negative side of things!  People often say "I don't want to feel so negative about everything", and it's useful to understand that your brain is doing what it is evolved to do.  

But this can be debilitating if it runs unchecked.  We can try and counter this tendency and bring some balance to our inner-lives, and it is possible to take steps in this direction.   There's lots of way of approaching this, but here are some questions you can ask yourself if you find yourself stuck in a cycle of negative thinking.  You can check your thinking by asking:

Where is the evidence for my belief(s)?

What impact is this way of thinking having on me?

Am I jumping to conclusions?

Is there any evidence to disprove my belief?

Am I concentrating on my weaknesses, and neglecting my strengths?

Am I taking things too personally?

Am I thinking in all-or-nothing terms?

Am I overstating the chances of something bad happening?

Am I predicting the outcome instead of experimenting with it?

Am I expecting total perfection?

Am I being open to evidence that 'disproves' my worst fears?

If I had to come up with a more balanced/helpful belief, what would this belief be?

If you have a problem situation in your life, you can try sitting down somewhere and taking twenty minutes to write out answers to these questions.  Really explore your own style of thinking.  If you spend some time doing this, you'll begin to condition yourself to avoid getting stuck in a spiral of negative thinking and hopefully more able to take a balanced view of your life.

www.whitestonetherapy.com

[nickarmstrongfilm]

Nurturing Nihilism In Paul W.S. Anderson’s Shopping (1994)

Paul W.S. Anderson is a filmmaker who has spent his career leaning into the artificiality of our cultural obsessions. If this is not evident enough from his countless film adaptations of video games — starting as early as his sophomore film, Mortal Kombat (1995), moving onto helming the majority of the massive Resident Evil franchise, and continuing with his upcoming Monster Hunter adaptation — then it should be clear from his heavy utilization of special effects. The majority of his work is also characterized by apocalyptic conditions, whether it be historical or fictional. In his debut feature Shopping (1994), the only one of these preoccupations that was not already in tact is the reliance on special effects. It is likely that this was due in part to budgetary constraints, this being his first ever film, however the fact that the film presents itself as a post-apocalyptic vision of teenage revolt without relying on the visual elements that denote a dystopian future in many of the film’s influences (including Blade Runner [1982] and A Clockwork Orange [1971], as Anderson mentions in the film’s audio commentary). Beyond being limited by his budget, it feels as though the film recognizes its present (1994) as the dystopia so many other films envisioned occurring decades later.

To establish its barren setting, the film opens on a series of shots depicting industrial buildings, pumping out fire and gas that saturate the screen. No humans are seen in this opening montage, we see nothing but acres and acres of metal until we’re introduced to Billy, who is being let out of prison. It is not clear what he had been locked up for until he is greeted by his partner, Jo, who immediately helps him steal a car. The film centers around these two characters, as well as their group of teenage friends, as they take part in the acts of “joyriding” and “ramraiding”, which respectively mean stealing vehicles for the fun of it, and driving said vehicles into the doors of a closed store with the intention of stealing from them. The common thread in all of their activities, though, is that they are forms of rebellion. All of the film’s teenage characters participate in smoking, stealing, drinking coffee, listening to techno and living recklessly, in general. The film depicts an intersection of nihilism and capitalism that is punctuated by all these actions, and what the film investigates is what purpose rebellion might serve within that intersection.

While many of these activities are unique to the film’s teenage characters, when we are introduced to the figures that embody everything they despise — such as Billy’s father, or really any authority figure — we see that they smoke cigarettes and drink coffee as well. Billy criticizes his father for “sitting on his fat ass and smoking all day”, when the only thing that differentiates the two of them is that Billy rebels in more public ways. Anderson co-opted a negative review of his film that called it a “reckless orgy of destruction” in the film’s marketing, but the film’s message becomes most clear in the many moments of reflection that come in between its very high-octane action sequences. It feels as though the cold, metallic landscape that these characters live in is what breeds despondency in relationships between humans, thus inspiring its younger citizens to destroy and rebel. However, it appears that it is not the desire to rebel that disappears as these characters grow older, but rather the publicity of the rebellion. Ever since it has been public knowledge that smoking causes cancer and, ultimately, death, the act of smoking has been a private act of rebellion that is fetishized in popular culture. It is a rather dystopian idea to consider that there is a product that neatly packages death with a warning that you should not buy it, and yet, it has been a staple in our society for decades. It feels as though everyone smokes in hopes of cutting their life short, and its feels like Billy (and the rest of the teenage characters) act the way they do in fear of growing up to reach that point of defeat.

“these will kill you” “I’ll take the chance”

The film is notably set in the ‘90s (“It’s the ‘90s, sex isn’t safe anymore,” Billy proclaims to Jo) but is not set in any specific city, despite begin a UK production. The film’s blanket depiction of capitalism’s effects on youth activities feels as though it intends on capturing the zeitgeist of the 1990s as it pertains to the UK, as well as the dominant North America. Though in raising that question of where rebellion fits into its intersection of nihilism and capitalism, the film also interrogates whether or not genuine connections have a place in that society. Billy and Jo spend the majority of the film’s runtime together, sharing a series of quiet moments in between their acts of rebellion. One moment that sticks out is an extended conversation the two of them have on top of a car they’ve stolen, in which Billy reflects on how he is too afraid to go back to prison but ultimately too afraid to escape the life he’s built for himself outside of it. It feels as though the two of them give each other purpose where nothing else does, and that love is the only pure thing that gives them a sense of excitement. However, their rebellion against their capitalistic landscape — that values metal over human connections — intercepts the purity of their love as well. If it wasn’t already clear from their most intimate moments taking place on stolen vehicles, against cold metal, it also manifests in their expressions of love. For example, Billy gives Jo stolen items as gifts, as tokens of love. Even in their need to disrupt capitalism, there is a reliance on materialism that feeds into a culture that ultimately doesn’t care if they live or die. Their relationship is never clearly defined, which is no doubt a result of viewing monogamy as a cornerstone of a life they’re so desperately trying to find a way out of. So when the couple end up crashing their vehicle through a line of police cars at the end of the film, laying dead in their car in front of a neon sign for a store called “RETAIL LAND,” it feels as though they’ve chosen to end things on their own terms instead of admitting defeat against a world that is unattainable to them, yet stares them right in the face as they fade away into the flames of their demolished vehicle.

If there’s any moment that could be considered an early tell that this is the work of Paul W.S. Anderson, it’s a moment that takes place during the film’s first car chase between Billy and Jo and the police. While the chase takes place, Billy drives the car and Jo casually plays a car chase video game in the passenger seat. We cut between shots of the stolen car they flee in, as well as the car within the video game that is marked “OFFENDER”. To a lesser extent, video games could be a contributing factor to their desperate need for excitement within the rather desolate landscape that they live in — especially if you consider that video games are mass produced by the same capitalistic institutions that are responsible for that landscape looking the way it does. Of course, as I mentioned up top, video games are of particular interest to Anderson, and it makes sense that the majority of his films — whether they’re video game adaptations or not — are set during the apocalypse. It is especially exciting to me when you can look back at a director’s debut film and see that the groundwork has been laid for the rest of their career, and that one particular sequence feels like Anderson’s career in a nutshell: from the artificiality of video games, to its apocalyptic conditions, to a general lack of direction for its characters. In Anderson’s own Pompeii, he uses digital 3D filmmaking to depict the genuine events of the destruction of Pompeii in 79 A.D. In many ways, that film’s doomed romance and the fragility of its central location matches Billy and Jo’s relationship in Shopping. Even Anderson’s Soldier (1998), in which Kurt Russel plays a genetically engineered soldier deemed useless by its makers, feels like an apt continuation of Shopping’s capitalistic society that moulds citizens only to push them out. What feels most appropriate to talk about in Anderson’s career, however, is the undercurrent of corporate evil in his Resident Evil franchise that tracks Alice’s (played by his wife, Milla Jovovich) reckoning with her identity in the face of an apocalypse that was directly created with the intention of killing everyone who wasn’t in line with the corporation’s values, especially since it does all of this through the lens of the artificiality of video game action.

In making a debut feature, it feels as though relying on your influences is a rite of passage. What tends to mark the work of a talented up-and-comer is engaging with the influences that you are employing, and as a dystopian depiction of our present, the film feels much more thoughtful than any of its influences. What feels most telling about a film like Shopping taking influence from a canonized classic like Blade Runner — and perhaps he is merely turning subtext into text, depending on how you look at it — is that it takes what feels like a staple in futuristic production design and tones it down to highlight all the modern elements of a vision we don’t anticipate becoming a reality until decades in the future. Ironically, Shopping’s 1994 feels closer to our 2019 than Blade Runner’s 2019 does. As for dystopian futures that drive teenagers to violent rebellion, ostensibly just for the sake of it, the film has a lot in common with Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick’s film leans further into post-modernism than outright dystopia in his depiction of a futuristic Britain, although as he depicts the film’s antihero Alex DeLarge descending into rebellion and ultimately being manipulated by the government into reaching a point of conformity that Shopping’s Billy and Jo would wince at, it feels as though it hinges on a boring sense of edgy nihilism where Shopping would instead probe and more deeply consider what feeds its characters nihilism and how it affects their personal relationships.  In spite of these more obvious influences on the film, I couldn’t help but recall Edward Yang’s Taipei Story (1985) with regards to the film’s central relationship. Yang’s film is an intimate portrait of how one woman navigates her work life and personal relationships in a rapidly shifting Taipei. The film’s main character, Chin, desperately tries to advance her life and find success while her boyfriend, a former baseball player, dwells on his past successes that he strays further and further from. I’m reminded of the film’s employment of sunglasses and cigarettes as a solace for Chin in a landscape that quickly shifts and remains powered by masculinity that refuses to change along with it. As stated above, Billy and Jo tend to avoid labels within their relationship, but it feels as though it is Billy who holds the most influence within their relationship. The nuances of their relationships and actions lie within their view of violent rebellion as their only viable place within their society, and how it is Billy’s masculinity and fear of conformity that keeps him from fully embracing his relationship with Jo in the way that she seems to long for. The fact that they are cornered into the outskirts of what capitalism deems a functional society is what forces Billy to make the decision that ultimately kills the two of them.

What feels most dystopian about these films that place equal focus on an alienating location as it does on its characters is that we are constantly shown a setting that advances without its citizens in mind, and as a result, we see our characters struggle to find purpose and are ultimately blocked off from feeling included within their own home. It’s for this reason that the teenage characters in Shopping insist on accelerating their youth, and the only tools they have to do so are handed to them by society. It is through these normalized and fetishized gateways to death that capitalism fosters nihilism within its youth.

[blessedandblack]

My Earthseed Community

Two of the biggest issues that we are currently facing are climate change and social inequities. People are so concerned with the betterment of themselves that they ignore how terrible they are making the conditions of other people and the environment. As long as things are not inconveniencing them, people tend to act like they do not see the negative effects that their actions have. The Earthseed verse from chapter 17 Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler says “Embrace diversity. Unite— Or be divided, robbed, ruled, killed By those who see you as prey. Embrace diversity Or be destroyed.” Chapter 20’s verse says “God is neither good nor evil, neither loving nor hating. God is Power. God is Change. We must find the rest of what we need within ourselves, in one another, in our destiny.” In our current society, we often overlook the struggles of our planet and fellow humans to the point that people are struggling to survive by working in sweatshops and factories are polluting our air so that people in “First World” countries can live the life of luxury that they are used to.

In my community, making sure that wealth is distributed evenly enough that everyone has the means of a comfortable survival will be a top priority. There would be no poverty due to greed or non-sustainable forms of energy. We would be living in the least polluted place in the world in order to make sure that we are affected the least by the past mistakes of humanity. Anyone that believes in the way our government is run can join the community. No capitalists or believers in any kind of fascist ideologies will be allowed so that we can maintain peace and equity.

A staple piece of technology in my Earthseed community will be a tool that can measure the level of pollution in the air and is able to identify the source. We will use it to get rid of anything that is posing a threat to our sustainable living environment. We will survive off of everyone putting in the same amount of effort through distributed tasks and treating one another like family. Our education system will actually be equitable and value will be placed on people’s knowledge, not on their familial status. Innovation and support are what we will value the most and will make sure that no one person does not have the means to make a living.

[777killghost]

Is Popularity of Hip-Hop Music Ruining Society?

It's 2018, Donald Trump is president, Nasa is organizing its first trip to Mars & Hip-Hop music is at its peak in the mainstream world. Week after week Hip-hop artist are dominating the Billboard charts with controversial, yet crowd-pleasing music. But there's one question we should ask when looking at the bigger picture. Is Hip-hop becoming the new pop beneficial to society? And if so, is the world ready for a genre that glorifies so much negativity in order to take the top spot?

Contemporary music or Hip-hop doesn't necessarily employ an excessive amount of profane language or subject matter. But instead reflects the right amount of said language and subject matter used by modern society. To be more specific, society itself has evolved and has embraced a more excessively profane, sexual liberating, and a darker standpoint that modern music reflects.

I heard a really impactful quote today when I was listening to Vince Staples lyrics in the song “Might be Wrong”. The quote was “Stand your ground? Black people don’t have a ground to stand on so they stand on their Words”. That quote is immense fully impactful due to the fact that music and art generally tend to reflect society in an amazing way. For example, Hip-Hop is surrounded by negative impressions due to its mature subject matter, but it’s reflecting the artist’s environment. Most rappers are minorities who grew up or who are currently living in oppressed environments. Therefore, they rap about their version of reality and situations they can relate to. Being from the South side of Ottawa my upbringing might not have been anything close to Vince Staples experiences in Long Beach, Los Angeles. But I can say that the messages through his lyrics relate to me deeply, and is a current reflection of the Southside rap scene in Ottawa.

Most songs seen on the top of the music charts feature mature, darker, and more dangerous subject matter. The songs themselves are not just the cause of social vices but are also symptoms in the larger illness brought forth from the "free-market" capitalistic society we live in. The rich get richer, the middle class is eroding, and the lower class is an ever-growing segment of our population.

A lot of times in today’s society people aren’t looking out for each other. In addition, our governments have lost faith and abandoned aiding their citizens in favor of filling their pockets and those of their shareholders. This causes a ripple effect in impoverished communities where one man’s success is envied by the other to the point of hateful acts being committed. Which is why most artist who succeed or start making earnings will solely look out for themselves. Why would you help your fellow man if he hates you, and why believe in the government if it never believed in you, to begin with? That's why you see these musicians make music that encourages such heaping amounts of vulgarity and promiscuousness because they are detailing the life that they can finally live now.

In modern Hip-Hop music, this lifestyle is very evident. Many of these rappers grow up very poor and live a treacherous lifestyle. It is their reality because their goal is to put food on the table and feed their families, or just to simply survive another day. In a time when upcoming rappers start to make money, they can live the fantasy that was denied of them because of their financial situation or skin tone. And consumers take a part in this too. We love these songs because they too are a possible fantasy that we can immerse ourselves into, and use to escape the demons of everyday life. That's what this music is and has always been, an outlet that musicians use to express their feelings, a moment of reprieve from the daily grind for the masses, and a reflection of the ills of modern society.

Hip-Hop music isn’t ruining society it is simply shining a light on what some people refuse to accept about today’s society. - GHO$T

[ephemeralvessel]

loneliness?

about the kurzgezagt video

the video is really good at describing the world history and the scientific aspect of loneliness, but in my opinion, it missed out a lot of points

1. yes, many of us experience loneliness. but mostly due to their own lack of self-discovery. what i notice is, people who really crave for social interaction with so many people are those who don’t really enjoy solitude, they can’t stand being alone with themselves. this can be simplified by the term “extrovert” and “introverts”. even tho it’s generalising the complexity of human personalities but it is quite accountable. introverts don’t hate social interaction, they just need less of it to make them feel content. and extrovert are the other way around. for me personally, i’ve always been enjoying my own company since i was a kid, i get lost in my inner world of thoughts, ideas, and imagination and being occupied with things that i enjoy doing in my alone time. i was never see it as “negative” or that i was lacking of something. and growing up, the more i discover who i am as a person, i began to see the world more clearly, that people are different, people have different personalities, beliefs, ideas, upbringing etc. and for a person who dislike conflicts (both internally or externally) i would rather be alone than being surrounded by people that would drain my energy. doesn’t mean that i hate them or something, it’s just, i value my time alone more than fake or forced interactions.

2. the video doesn’t cover up about how people are memang mostly asshole. yes, we shouldn’t be hostile towards people, but lets be real lah, banyak orang yg emang asshole didunia ini, yg tidak kindhearted, warm, and caring. most people are shallow, mean, cold hearted, and never really dig deep into deeper meaning in themselves. jadi ya, it’s not fair hanya menyalahkan orang yg merasa lonely karena mereka berusaha “siaga” sama dunia luar yg “dingin” dan “jahat”. because in reality, so many fucked-up people which can do bad things.

3. the bigger problem is not we locked ourselves in, but we need to question WHY do people tend to be more un-trusting towards other people. and in my opinion, it is way deeper & broader problem than the video said about modernisation. u know, we live in a world where greed, ego, competition by eliminating others, ambition for individual fulfilment, cold heartedness, and capitalistic system regard as more valuable than the opposite: generosity, kindness, empathy, warm heartedness, compassion, and harmony. all human beings in this planet are shaped into thinking that the only things that matter are money, status, pride, fame etc. that idea is strengthened by social media, but social media is merely a product of bigger fucked-up system in this world. so, it is not only the fault of the “sheeps” that was born into this already fucked-up world we’re living. if we really want to talk about the solution of loneliness, we NEED to address for the real problem, the real deep-rooted cause. and we need to change the whole world

aku selalu fascinated sama what makes people behave the way they are since i was a kid, i always wanted to know about the mystery of our brain, the psyche, the “who we are and what makes us, us”-question. dan ketika aku SMA dan kuliah, aku selalu memperhatikan orang yg penyendiri, yg tidak socially accepted by their peers atau mereka yg di asingkan dari lingkaran lingkaran pertemanan. i was never been that “penyendiri” sebenernya, i always had circle and i could act bubbly and chatty and looked like a born-extrovert. im good at meeting new people and get close to them because i genuinely care for people (if i let myself). so i was wondering, what makes those people being excluded. dan aku mendekati mereka untuk aku ajak bicara. one of them is in highschool, and i got really close to him until we got in to relationship. at first it was a pure curiousity and empathy, i hate seeing people suffer from social bullying. but then i grew my genuine compassion and care into love.

the other person is in college, ada satu temen perempuan yg ga punya teman, pendiem, hostile sama orang lain, dan orang2 suka jadiin dia bahan becandaan. suatu hari aku ada kerja kelompok sama dia, dan aku tanya, kenapa dia spt tidak membuka hati untuk orang. dan from that conversation i learned that she’s the way she is because she was hurted before. dia pernah punya teman dekat bgt waktu SMA tp ada suatu masalah yg berawal dari temennya itu involve gurunya untuk suatu konflik yg aku lupa detailnya gmn. intinya, she was traumatised by people she trusted. can we blame her for her unlucky experience?

what i understand from my direct conversations and observations (and sadly my own experience too😅), part of the problem is also the society, the people who treat each other badly, being harsh, unconsiderate, heartless, and mean. and maybe, all of us, deep inside, we all have the potential to be evil, but thats why we should take the journey to ourselves. blaming the individuals who’s been hurted and wounded by social interaction is not wise, and not a conclusive solution. we should blame all of us, the system we’re living, the way we nurture babies and kids, the way we shape the world, everything.

and for a disharmonious world is like a sick body, we shouldn’t treat the symptoms only with over-the-counter drugs, but the whole wellbeing of the planet

and to be fair, i would also point out the brighter side of things 😂 because my writings above are so bleak and dark.

in bigger perspective, we’re never be alone. we’re all interconnected. the air you’re breathing can consist enough oxygen because phytoplankton in the ocean produce it “happily” for all of us, and they couldn’t do it without the sun, our beloved giant fire-ball who emits a lot of free energy (which sadly is not being used as our primary free source of energy, we dig unrenewable dinosaurs fossil instead).

and your breath is the most important thing for u to stay alive, it might be small but significant. so anytime u feel alone, breath deeply and realise there are millions of tiny creatures on the ocean who made it possible for u. dan masih banyak lagi sih small details yg interconnected.

oh and btw, dogs and cats are human’s friends too, malah lebih sincere dan unconditionally loving dari manusia 🐱🐶

[wesay-comm-blog]

CONNECTIVITY AND THE CULTURE AND SOCIETY

     How does communication create, maintain, or modify culture and society? To answer this question we must first start off with defining what communication, culture, and society is.

     Communication is the process of conveying information or meanings through words or symbols in order for one to connect between one entity or a group. Mass communication on the other hand is communication within a wider range of audience. Meanwhile, culture and society, though totally different with each other are two things which are coexistent. Culture won’t exist without society and so as society in the absence of culture. Culture, though interpreted in many different definitions is defined by most scholars as something that is shared among groups of people with shared history, values, knowledge and tradition. Society then would be the outer structure, a group of people living collectively on a wider social group with a systematic form of relationship.

     With the occurrence of new technologies, our means of communication had gradually changed and the effects this new media to culture, society, and communication itself are creating debates whether it would make or destroy us.

MEDIA COMMUNICATION TRANSFORMS CULTURE AND SOCIETY

     Some scholars say that communication itself is responsible for the emergence of culture. With the increasing rampant use of the internet and use of social media as the main medium of communication comes the wider and larger scale of information transmission and communication. Through the internet people nowadays can create connections with other people even from great distances which enable them to communicate and form groups with other people of the same beliefs and interests across the globe online. This is deviant from the kind of society before in which people of the same culture can only communicate through limited types of medium and are only concentrated within a specific area or a community. The world right now is connected through a vast online network and created a new cultural environment called a “Global Village”, a term coined by Marshall McLuhan explaining how the entire world shrunk into one village with the emergence of electronic media, linking everyone in all parts of the world into a complex network of communication. The communication we have with other people from across the world enables us to obtain and learn culture from different places and people in which we can subject to personal interpretations, thus, allowing us to change our own perception of the culture and society each of us were ascribed to and gives us the power to choose whether to keep conforming or to deviate from the norms.

CREATING SOCIAL NORMS

     Social norms are integral in forming and reshaping the culture within a society. The more the people communicate about something increases the chances of it becoming culturally and socially normative. Communicating what we perceive to be relevant traits repeatedly increases the chances of it remaining as a normative characteristic. Some things are more likely to be talked about above other things, and as long as it is talked about would give rise to popular opinions and stereotypes within the society. For example, the emergence of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter instantly became a need for 21st century people and most specially the teens because most information, news, and socialization are obtained from these platforms. Not having an account on any of this social media platform means that you’re being left out from the rest of the world, which made the idea of having an account as a norm. That’s why some people directly ask another person of their account name on Facebook or Instagram when they want to get to know them rather than asking whether they have an account in the first place. With the idea of having an account on these platforms a norm, popular stereotypes in fashion, beauty, and even ideology or of many other sorts are increasingly widespread through Pop Cultures. People with power such as the capitalists, the church, and even the government could use this platform to persuade, create and even impose norms to the society.

POWER AND DEVIANCE

     The concept of Power existed through the process of communication. Different institutions that organize our society are largely constructed in our minds through the communication process. They have the power to manipulate how ordinary people think, feel, and behave. The media technology created a new medium for power strategies to take place. Most power figures are persuasive in communicating their preferences and would sometimes demand for conformity. Many influential authorities could modify or maintain cultures just by simply communicating their beliefs and expectations. Culture and society could be maintained when the people choose to conform, but sometimes, persistent imposition of a cultural norm could be coercive and sometimes backfire. People might feel restricted from their freedom and start to question a cultural norm in its validity and even inspire deviance from this norm and seek ways to express their decisional freedom instead. Though social media could be a platform for the powerful to be in control, it also gives the opportunity for the ordinary people to voice out their opinions regarding imposed norms. This gives them the potential to have power instead and change culture as the society knows it.

 IS MEDIA CREATING OR DESTROYNG?

     The fast development in technology had created the condition of communication at lot easier for us and through the past decade became an essential part of our daily lives by stimulating our own thoughts with providing various information which were made easily accessible. Though media communication had presented us with constructive roles in the society such us providing us a wide platform of gathering information and bringing everyone in all parts of the world closer, I believe that in most ways it has a greater potential to destroy our own culture and society. Media platforms give too much freedom to its users and sometimes people tend to abuse this newly obtained freedom. Conflicts can arise online due to the differing opinions between different people and sometimes social taboos such are even being defended or and depictions of sex and violence are increasing in different media contents. This could be bad to the young readers who might see these sensitive contents and be mistaken on interpreting what’s right or what’s wrong and inspire people to do crime or be disobedient to the law, something that keeps our society organized. It’s true that the world gets closer because of media, but with the use of it and its benefits comes our own privacy. The world gets smaller and our personal information are being leaked without us even knowing it. As long as our personal information is contained in the internet the problems of leakage would always be in question.

     Whether media technologies would be constructive or destructive to society would now depend on how each of us use media as a form of communication. But for now, I think that its negative effects on our behavior and communication are outweighing its potential to give a positive effect on our society. Its ability to provide people with either their own subjective or objective opinions could potentially cause chaos. 

[ljmuassignment1305]

Eve Chartrand: Art and Ageing

A few weeks ago, my university class had the opportunity to have a lecture over zoom with Canadian artist Eve Provost Chartrand. She gave us a run through of her creative process as well as the meaning behind her artwork - it was very interesting to listen to and here I’m going to share what I learnt.

Born and raised in Quebec, Canada, Eve Chartrand, who is currently located in the US, is a contemporary artist whose bioartworks heavily focus on the topic of ageing, death, women, inclusiveness, and the representation of bodies, through photography and instillation. She currently uses her artwork in order to make comments on how aging bodies are viewed by society and how they gradually become seen as nothing but a spectacle of illness. 

Above: Unexpected Bountifulness 

For me, some bioartworks at first felt a tiny bit uncomfortable to look at due to their fleshy appearance, but I soon realised that that was the whole point of Chartrand’s work - it’s meant to challenge that uncomfortable feeling, asking ‘why do you feel uncomfortable looking at this?’. The point of her work is to be able to show that aging bodies are still beautiful, despite what the vast majority of society may think. By using aging female bodies in something as highbrow as art, it challenges the ageist idea that women lose their beauty once they reach a certain age, and that they are only seen as weak and frail - showing that society has this sort of materiality in agency.

“Bioartworks challenge Western cultural and bioscientific imaginaries of sealed, self-contained bodies and the accompanying firm distinction between life and non-life, natural and artificial, and human and non-human. It is these binaries that – since the inception of Western philosophy – have not only served as key coordinates for ontology (‘what exists’) but also formed the ground for ethics”. (Radomska, 2017)

The western world has developed this harmful way of thinking. Those less able-bodied just end up being disregarded and seen as lower, not getting as much respect as the average person does, because they are unable to take part in life the same way a younger, stronger, more able-bodied person is; this doesn’t just effect those growing much older, but it also has an effect on the disabled. This negative mentality is no doubt linked to the capitalist view of somebody’s worth being based on how well they are able to perform and contribute.

Above: Photographs of Chartrand’s piece Specimen 5, taken by Chartrand

Later, Chartrand described her creative process when working in her studio; she tends to touch, smell, and even taste materials she considers using, and she also tends to take things apart and then re-build them. She acknowledged how odd this process must sound to us, but she explained that she does this in order to become closer to the objects and materials she uses; in a lot of her sculptures she uses fungi, which she uses to symbolise decay and age. Additionally she has fed fungus to audience members during art performances.

Chartrand’s work is bizarre yet beautiful, and it’s something that causes you to question what it is your are looking at. Her art pieces present a feminist view that concerns a group of women that, in my opinion, are not payed enough attention to when on the topic of feminism. By putting elderly women in her art, she grants them a chance to regain the beauty that society has considered them to have lost, and proves that they never lost that beauty in the first place. We are able to see a small part of ourselves in Chartrand’s art as we are reminded that our youthful appearances will one day leave us; she reminds us that we all have one thing in common, that we all share one experience, the experience of ageing and that it is only part of what makes us human.

[Sources]

Eveprovostchartrand.com. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://www.eveprovostchartrand.com/> [Accessed 25 March 2021].

Radomska, M., 2017. Non/living Matter, Bioscientific Imaginaries and Feminist Technoecologies of Bioart. Australian Feminist Studies, 32(94), pp.377-394.

[trebaolsmovingcastle]

@saint-just replied to your post: “Are we all gonna die?”

(A) You’ve lumped automation in with  fiercely negative things like climate problems and doom-war. Why? (B) “A minority of people hijacked the country and do evil with it, and somehow it means that it’s all over.” - Are you referring to when a minority of evil people birthed the country then stayed on top, or are we to believe contemporary developments are a significant departure from the norm? When you say “it’s all over”, is the “it” this country? Would that even be bad?

S’alright, so there’s definitely a lot to unpack here and go through. First let me just say that the post in question isn’t a carefully crafted paean or anything, I got an anonymous ask, which got me thinking and I tend to extemporize as I go...which in turn made it a paean to hope of sorts. So I hope you’ll cut me a little slack on certain flourishes, or at the very least on not bogging myself down in some serious semantics.

That aside, let’s take a look at my concerns about automation, mind you I’ve been reading on this topic for the last five years mostly, and I’m not an academic. So I wasn’t smart enough to make a refined list of resources I can constantly drag up or refer back to when I need to reference specific numbers. That’s my fault, I just accrue information and create a holistic image of outcomes.

Also, Saint-Just, I’ll go on at length, which I think won’t bother you, so everyone else feel free to skip all of this.

At face value automation is a savior, imagine, all these jobs, roles, systems suddenly handed off uniformly to AI’s robots, machines, systems that take the human element out of the equation. It’s star trek, it’s the replicator in a way. 3D printers making houses for next to nothing, no more miserable truck drivers pulling dangerous all nighters because the freight industry is automated. no more low wage jobs, they’re all done by the push of a button. Even the white collar jobs, and medical jobs all vanish far enough down the automation line. If you can teach a robotic arm to prepare a meal, you can teach similar arms and AI’s how to close a bleeding heart valve or excise a tumor with more precision than any human surgeon. You can have your markets rise and fall at speeds completely unimaginable as processors crunch numbers and make trades at speeds that we’re basically already at.

Now, this seems all great, when I lived in Seattle I had a friend who worked at Amazon, he was obsessed with automation and the golden future it would create, he also supported a universal basic income. He believed that tech giants would pioneer the way in pushing for a UBI, that automation would render industries nonexistent, and that the capital would get picked up by either the government or that these companies themselves would willingly just hand the money to the public, providing everyone a livable income without the need for work.

The problem is that there is virtually no evidence that any corporation or business entity is likely to start handing off profits to the public for free. Nor is there evidence that the tech field is somehow immune to the corrupting influence of capitalism and for profit enterprise. 

So what seems more likely is that you’ll have industries disappear, even now you can see automation taking over a variety of industries, open a factory that used to employ 5,000 union workers, now you can open that same factory and staff it with a skeleton crew of tech savvy workers who can perform maintenance of the new robotic workers. Meaning rural communities that formerly would depend on these types of jobs can just keep waiting, because their town can’t be saved by a factory with 25 jobs for people with coding skills.

Even looking at analysis made by I think the Bureau of Labor Statistics creates this uniquely grim image. In essence they’ll go through industries and provide long term career analysis for various fields, including factors that could impact the industry in question and how competitive the work environment is for new workers. Anyway, these analyses paint a rosier picture than most, but still list automation as a major threat to a number of fields.

So you have a variety of low paying jobs disappearing from the economy, especially in service jobs, creating more and more underemployment, and stiffer and stiffer competition for these low wage jobs. As a side note consider how many retirement age americans are now expecting to work until they die. So now add in over the years all the competition created by this gradually increasing group of workers. Suddenly we have this extremely broad category of low income, or no income people, uneducated for the new automated economy, without resources to join the existing workforce. You and I know that there is no social mobility now, and that whatever income bracket your parents inhabited is now less likely to be the bracket you will occupy.

Okay, so now we’re setting a stage where you have broad automation cutting a swathe through the jobs held by the 50% of American households that are under the poverty line, then you have automation also hitting at white collar and traditionally upper class jobs. All of this we have to assume will happen without Federal assistance for the working poor, or means to support this growing mass of people unable to find jobs.

As a class, we workers in a capitalist system only have one single way to really enforce our survival and protection...strikes, attacks on production at our jobs. When you eliminate the working class, as automation does, you lose your voice, you lose the only tactic you had within the existing system to demand change, protection, recompense, anything. You’re no longer a part of the system because the system doesn’t need you. For future generations consider trying to plan a college education around what kind of career you’ll need to be in at 40...when you’re 20. We’re already sold the lie of college as an answer to security, I was told at 10 to plan for my 50′s by picking a stable job I could retire with. By the time I entered the workforce the notion of a company keeping you to retirement no longer existed for most workers. As automation comes for some industries there will be a proliferation of jobs in that industry as you can have more people working in these fields as the cost of the fields drops, but that means that those jobs are generally part time and low paying. It has happened to paralegals for example, as well as bank tellers. Sure technology has caused these industries to balloon and meet a greater demand, but now the people in those fields are paid a pittance of what they used to. 

The one thing I didn’t go into at length in that post was that a lot of this all seems to be an area of concern for the decade of 2020-2030. Most fields concerned with the health of a society seem to have this notion that this coming decade is going to be a reckoning, that what is currently modest automation will balloon as the decade progresses, that the inequality we experience now will be enhanced, I imagine that a lot of the people singing praises about the ‘singularity’ ten years ago are now biting their nails as fascism comes back and the surveillance state entrenches itself ahead of all of the increasing economic inequality.

So although automation isn’t in and of itself bad, when handled by the same humans that brought us Google and Amazon...I’m concerned. We can’t depend on capitalism restructuring itself into a system that will care for the public and redefine what it means to work...we can’t hope for a UBI and careers in creative fields and just free cash to pay for the goods generated by an automated economy. We need to see this coming and be prepared for what looks like reality, a world where the jobs for the working classes disappear, with no retraining options, and few new jobs to fight over...jobs that likely will also face automation.

Alright, bear with me, Saint-Just, if you’ve come this far I appreciate that you care enough to go further.

On to the next bit. I need you to accept a series of ideas that may seem in some bizarre or contradictory or just...impossible to accept...but neo-liberalism isn’t ur-fascism and the harm done by one isn’t categorically identical to the other. Does this mean I want a neo-liberal President, a neo-liberal system? No, I want something altogether different, but when given the choice between the agony of millions, without relief, and a boot stomping on them for decades and at least limited option to resist and alter course, I’ll take the altered course.

When you allow fascism to truly take home in your political ecology you introduce the possibility that the softness of people’s resistance to evil will see people in camps in due time. We already have these problems with our government before Trump, but this is virtually asking for an authoritarian neo-feudalism to take over. How likely is a successful revolution against a government of that type? 

So to me, in this moment, the threat George Washington poses to the world is minimal, but the threat Donald Trump poses is more important. And when offered a choice between combative resistance to Clinton and Trump, I would choose Clinton because there’s at least a minimal chance that time, effort, and action would lead to change. Now we’re entering into a realm where information technology and the changing economy will truly render our ability to avert disaster moot. We’ll be against the wall when the fascist revolution comes, and despite the beauty of the White Roses stance wouldn’t you rather they never die along with all the Jews, homosexuals, romani, and other unwanted by the fascists of Germany?

The nation was founded by slavers and self interested businessmen, the nation is crowned with the genocide of the indigenous nations that came before, our national drink isn’t coca cola, it’s blood of everyone our forefathers executed to plant a homesteader in some prairie cabin, to suppress a vote, to sell cotton...both North and South. But right now, in this moment, I have more pressing concerns, the safety of people who aren’t me, the survival of people who aren’t me. When ICE is kicking in doors and baiting families by using their children...we have people suffering on a matter of societal semantics.

As for the ‘it’s all over’ go back and reread it with a question mark, that’s a typo on my part, it’s a rhetorical question. I’m making the case that simply because you have fascists at the gate doesn’t mean that they have to win.

That is what the post is about at heart, it’s what this is all about, that there are alternatives. I’ll still make a point to answer your understandable misread of my message, namely that it wouldn’t be bad if this ended. But you have to be prepared for what happens next. I can’t rail for revolution without conscience of what can happen. I can’t take a stance that says we need to tear it all down this moment, that you, or I, is able to do that. Because in this moment, with these resources, in this world...you most likely hand all the power you need to the people who have made this world categorically worse.

Revolutionary thought isn’t just about action, it’s about vision, goals, and again, as always, over and over, hope, love for mankind, even the people we loathe most. You can’t save everyone, you can’t win without some bloodshed...but you can’t throw it all away early because your ideology can’t accept the current reality. To me, now, in the coming years, all I can do is talk, write, engage with people, stand up and be counted as the counting comes. Resist tooth and nail against the worst of it, but I need to also consider who lives, who comes next, who will benefit. Revolutionaries are better alive and volunteering, helping the living who can’t themselves muster the energy to do more than nod along with a message of something better. Martyring for causes doesn’t bring us any closer to anything better, because the life lost was a life that missed all its future opportunities to enact change.

Look at your name! Look at beloved Robespierre! A slip...a momentary accident of exhaustion, of placement, a misstep, and suddenly the ideals of a transformed society dashed and instead you get Napoleon and two centuries of ‘Bloodthirsty’ Seafoam Incorruptible. Revolutions burn the revolutionaries like kindling, that is history on repeat, so take that and consider what can be done when revolutionary action is needed? That possibly instead of burning out before the job is done, we all try being the ones to decide what comes next. No empires, no neo-feudalism, no fascists, no new Bonapartes, Hitlers, Franco’s, Kim’s, or Jackson’s...that’s the goal, that’s the seemingly impossible demand put on true souls, to think, and plan, to resist, angry, ready, eager, but with the desire to pull as much of the people out of the fire as possible.

My sincere hope is that I can help, in some small fashion, as the times demand. I do not want to be at barricades or on tribunals, I don’t want to daydream about revolutionary councils, I want to dream that the institutions that corrupt this world are dismantled, that the poor don’t suffer, that the starving are fed, that the image of western civilization...white civilization are cast down and something better is achieved. That as needed I can talk my way through problems, that when needed I can go to the streets, that as things get worse my message doesn’t stop. I can’t dream about revolution because revolution is innocent blood heaped with the guiltys for little to no gain. I am not against these things, I am not against a coming change, but when you blow a society apart, you need to have thought about the timing. There is a right time. Right now...be these ideas, life, exist in the face of these awful things. Existing at all can be revolutionary. Being an image of what could be better in the world is more important now than stockpiling brickbats in hopes that tomorrow there will be a window to break.

Now, I do not mean to imply that you’re what I fear from revolutionary thinkers, I’m expressing what I’ve experienced in the past amongst a handful of people on the coast, that there’s this suicidal desire to martyr yourself for a cause, the cause becomes a bloodthirsty god that can only be satisfied by propaganda of the deed. The purpose of revolutionary ideas should be other people, the happiness, security, FUTURE, of other people. God, but a revolutionary should love, love adoringly the world, the suffering and misery of the world should hurt the revolutionary like seeing harm come to someone you care for, multiplied again and again. 

If the time came, for anyone, to rise up, to lead, to declare, to act...surely challenges, cruelty of the times, hardship, terror all would follow, but until then it is so important to focus on what is coming and what all of us are best at, what all of us can do when called upon. I will die, as will you, as will we all, but I must live so that should I die, I will have died unwaveringly standing in my convictions and hope for something better. Let me be of the immortal dead if it means the message of love, of the people, of something better for this dismal future is what gives me voice beyond the grave.

I hope I have been clear, I know I can be long winded, I’m better in person in almost all regards and easier to understand than in writing. I also hope that this satisfies you, that you understand my position better and can see what I mean in what I said before. That post was about hope, about encouraging hope in people who are too terrified of tomorrow to have hope. We need hope, we can’t despair the future because it needs us.

[andrewsiegel-blog]

Creative Destruction and Terah’s Idol Shop - Understanding Judaism’s Approach to Capitalism and the Issue of Income Inequality

By Andrew Siegel

           Economic data shows that income inequality - the gap between the richest and poorest members of society - is the highest it has ever been in the United States.[1] As the 2020 federal election cycle builds, a chorus of potential presidential candidates from the left are putting forward proposals meant to arrest the increasing capture of economic gains by those in the top 1% of American society. President Trump expectedly has characterized all such proposals as socialist. What is surprising, however (and heartening to those who believe a thoughtful dialogue on this topic is long overdue), is that many of the beneficiaries of the accelerating wealth accumulation that has occurred over the past two generations in this country are now acknowledging that something needs to change. To wit:

●      Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, who Forbes estimates has a net worth of $3.7 billion, is considering running for president in order to, among other things, address what he calls a “crisis of capitalism” in the United States.[2]

●      Hedge funder Ray Dalio, whose wealth Forbes estimates at $18.4 billion, released a white paper in April calling for the reform of capitalism due to its compounding positive effects for the wealthy and negative spiraling impact for the poor. Dalio says this feature of American capitalist “is creating widening income/wealth/opportunity gaps that pose existential threats to the United States.”[3]  

●      Private equity titan Steve Schwarzman (net worth $12.4 billion) this month outlined what he called a “Marshall Plan to address increasing income inequality in America.”[4]

●      Larry Fink, whose Blackrock is the world’s largest asset manager, last year released a letter to 1,000 corporate CEOs whose stock Blackrock owns on behalf of clients. Its premise: “Around the world, frustration with years of stagnant wages, the effect of technology on jobs, and uncertainty about the future have fueled popular anger, nationalism, and xenophobia. In response, some of the world’s leading democracies have descended into wrenching political dysfunction, which has exacerbated, rather than quelled, this public frustration.”[5]

           Motivation for these and similar proposals comes from a general sense of societal good (while not ignoring that a continued well-functioning American and global economy is in any case positive for the billionaire class).[6]  Dalio, for instance, argues, “The best results come when there is more rather than less of: a) equal opportunity in education and in work, b) good family or family-like upbringing through the high school years, c) civilized behavior within a system that most people believe is fair, and d) free and well-regulated markets for goods, services, labor, and capital that provide incentives, savings, and financing opportunities to most people.”[7]  The arguments tend naturally to be economics-based or about systemic risk, rather than grounded in principles of fundamental fairness, ethics or justice. No one has yet put forth a widely accepted deontological or teleological maxim for what we might call “conscientious capitalism” - a capitalism that does not inevitably result in 40% of the wealth in the hands of 1% of the population.[8] A worthwhile question, therefore, is what Judaism might say about capitalism, and about the current state of inequality between rich and poor that the American brand of capitalism has created.[9] Within principles of social justice that we could identify as particularistically Jewish, is remedying economic inequality an appropriate end? And if so, what could Jewish law and values contribute to defining the challenge and proposing a vision for a more economically just future?

           The Torah says nothing about capitalism per se, of course - the notion of “capital” wouldn’t be named for another few millennia after revelation. Capitalism is simply the accumulation of wealth, which is then used as a resource to be combined with ideas and productivity. The output raises the standard of living of those involved in the capital-consuming project. At its heart, capitalism is about creation and how to benefit from it - and this is a subject on which the Torah has much to say. We don’t get three words into the opening line of Beresheit without it; 25 lines later, man is given dominion over the earth and all of its creatures. (Genesis 1:28-30). Later, when Abram is told by God to go forth from Haran, Abram takes with him “kol rakushim ashar rakshu” - variously translated as all the wealth he had accumulated or substance he had gathered or property he had purchased. We can safely say that Judaism and capitalism share as foundational creative acts, productivity, and accumulating value-generating resources.[10] Once Adam and Eve left Eden, human effort became a critical component of our existence; it’s assumed humans are meant to labor.[11]

           Accordingly, Judaism and capitalism are not necessarily competing ideologies. From the moment Adam is forced to rub two sticks together to create fire, humans are set on a course to utilize resources, materials and our own creativity to produce and progress. Increasing nature’s yield is a basic and positive human activity, in the view of our Sages - as long as the bounty is used to lift up humankind in harmony with our better instincts. The rabbis saw the inherent duality of the human drive. They observed that we are made up of two yetzers (from the shoresh meaning to form or create) - the yetzer rah and yetzer hatov. Our yetzer hatov must always be watchful of the yetzer rah, as they are in constant interplay. R. Nachman said in R. Samuel’s name, “Can then the Evil Desire be very good? That would be extraordinary! But without the Evil Desire, however, no man would build a house, take a wife and beget children; and thus said Solomon: ‘Again, I consider all labor and all excelling in work, that is a man’s rivalry with his neighbor’.” (Bereishit Rabbah 9:9)  Aware of both the promise and the challenge of that duality, Judaism is careful to subsume the human drive within its foundational ethics.

           Judaism does not require that we actively seek to redistribute wealth. It does not favor the poor over the wealthy and in fact our Sages warn against doing so. Just as Moses and David rose to great heights despite laboring as shepherds at points in their respective journeys, Judaism does seem to favor social mobility. We find support for this notion of course in the famous codification by Maimonides of the levels of charity. Its highest form is the rectification of the social imbalance through upward mobility based on effort. Maimonides understood that our helping others to build their own income and wealth would become part of a larger virtuous cycle, where poverty is transformed into wealth in turn offered for the spiritual and physical well-being of the community.

Our desire to increase wealth and income must comply with three basic notions of Judaism:

God is the sole source and owner of all wealth.

Judaism establishes communal obligations.

We must walk in God’s ways.

As Jews, we are obligated to build, defend and deploy wealth only in ways appropriate under the Law. The use of our wealth and income must be in keeping with the positive (i.e. action) attributes of mercy, justice and loving-kindness.[12]  According to scholar Meir Tamari,  a network of halakhic rulings exist “in order to ensure that the way a man accumulates wealth is neither morally damaging nor physically harmful to his fellow men. It must also be in accordance with the norms of God-given (Torah) morality, even when these run counter to the accepted practice of the particular society in which a Jew might find himself.”[13] Jewish notions of social justice include remedying economic inequality.

           As Tamari suggests, we know that Judaism is opposed to the current effects of capitalism as damaging to social justice; we find extensive guidance within Judaism for shaping a more just form of capitalism that leaves plenty of room for wealth creation and accumulation. Shmitah, peah, bikurim, gleanings and jubilee teach not only faith and trust in God’s providence[14], but are examples of the category of hefker, or ownerless-ness. See, e.g. Mishnah Peah (1-8). Because we are utterly dependent on God for our economic well-being, we must act justly in business toward others. Failure to abide causes undue hardship to others, and once this reaches systemic proportions - as we are experiencing today - causes society’s fabric to fray.

           Multiple halakhot reinforce ethical behavior in the economic realm from the perspective of Jewish social justice concerns. These principles includes just weights and measures (see Leviticus 19:36), restrictions on misrepresentation (G’neivat Da’at), taking advantage of information asymmetries in the marketplace and coercion (see Baba Bathra 40b). The mishna of Baba Metzia 58b discusses the ona’a of statements in commerce, where one is prohibited from asking the price of an item if he does not have intent to purchase it, since the seller will feel mistreated and be dejected.  There are extensive laws regarding the treatment of servants and workers, far too numerous to go into depth about here. As shown through these well-established concepts, Judaism provides an ethical framework that is meant to strip economic activity of its potential to create unjust or hurtful outcomes. In much of this, a common thread can be discerned.

           That common thread is the important of truth-telling.  We may not be silent in the face of wrongdoing or injustice. In its list of God’s commands to Moses, several of which form the basis of commercially-oriented Halakhah,  Leviticus 19 contains the obligation to reprove. In a way, regardless of their positions as captains of industry, the successful capitalists now weighing in on the ill effects of America’s economic system are truth-telling. They are honoring the Torah requirement to rebuke. [15] To rebuke requires us to know right from wrong, and there is a very small series of steps from realizing the truth, to stating it, and to acting upon it, as Moses did for the daughters of Jethro (Exodus 2:16-19). Judaism requires that we speak up now about the injustices being caused by wealth and income disparity due to the  separation of modern capitalism from the ethical roots established in the Torah and Halakhah.

           Sociologists tell us that inside the modern corporation, managers look to each other for guidance, to demonstrate understanding of the corporate culture and to exhibit get-it-done behavior.[16] Compensation and promotions accrue to those who best demonstrate the behaviors promoted by the corporate culture. External moral norms, the link between objective goods and reward, are replaced by the need for positive reviews, which need in turn incentivizes sociability and self-promotion. As a result, learned self-rationalization eventually overtakes concepts like merit, hard work, brotherhood and common interest. The overwhelming peer pressure to achieve results or avoid failure crowds out the impulses that would, in another setting, cause one to prioritize doing the right thing. So perhaps there is an answer elsewhere, a sort of “kinder, gentler” invisible hand?

           In contrast to the way his theories are today often interpreted, Adam Smith was a moralist. His 1759 work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, is one of the foundational works of consequentialism. His economics were normative. Commercial pursuits were seen as fulfilling outlets for individual creativity, energy, productivity, resourcefulness and agency.  Unfortunately, however, that sort of human capital has not led to consistent convergence of wealth within individual economies in the 200 years since the industrial revolution. There are just too many forces and actors involved. As contemporary political economist Thomas Piketty has argued, “The history of inequality is shaped by the way economic, social and political actors view what is just and what is not ... there is no natural, spontaneous process to prevent destabilizing, inegalitarian forces from prevailing permanently.”[17] Within economics itself, there is no input for the objective of securing our own well-being as well as that of our neighbor. As Mary Hirschfeld argues, economics needs an injection of both philosophy and theology if we are to overcome the atomistic definition of capitalism that permits, on rationalistic grounds, the concentration of wealth and well-being into fewer and fewer hands.[18]

Wealth inequality is one of the most pressing issues of contemporary social justice. Judaism, therefore, must confront its causes. It must challenge the conduct within American capitalism in an effort to reinsert ethical impulses and ends, regardless of whether that would demand that we hold ourselves to a standard beyond that required by law (lifnim mishurat hadin). At the same time, it is critical to remember that Judaism, within its overall boundaries, has never challenged the creative impulse in the context of trade, as a specific case. The Tanakh features many stories of self-actualization, including of our greatest prophet Moses. Judaism has no theological criticism to offer against the enrichment of individuals in the commercial sphere. What it does seek to guide is moderation of selfish impulses through consideration of our fellow human. It obligates us to conduct ourselves economically with humility due to our understanding that everything we have belongs to God and is due to God’s favor. It commits us to see the bigger picture, to seek community for the sake of peace. The tenets of Judaism can be a source of insight, which may lead, if not to solutions for this issue, then at least for thoughtful consideration of improvements in the way we think and conduct ourselves while in trade. Judaism’s ability to find room for creation, innovation and accumulation alongside ethical behavior is why it has standing to contribute guidelines for conscientious thought and action to our modern economic behavior, as our belief in one God with attributes of justice and loving-kindness has helped confront the other idols of our making since Abrahamic times.

[1] See, e.g. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/opinion/what-are-capitalists-thinking.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region; https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/

[2] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=650255208731179

[3] https://economicprinciples.org/Why-and-How-Capitalism-Needs-To-Be-Reformed/?utm_medium=adwords&utm_source=GS&utm_content=341819909261&utm_campaign=60minutes-search

[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/steve-schwarzman-raise-minimum-wage-eliminate-taxes-for-teachers.html

[5] https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2018/01/16/worlds-largest-money-manager-to-ceos-you-must-do-good-for-society/?utm_term=.dce24989a780

[6] For instance, Dalio’s two arguments for why the income and wealth gaps need to be closed are: “They slow our economic growth because the marginal propensity to spend of wealthy people is much less than the marginal propensity to spend of people who are short of money” and “They result in suboptimal talent development and lead to a large percentage of the population undertaking damaging activities rather than contributing activities.” In other words, we need poor people to make more because they tend to spend while rich people tend to save; and they’ll revolt unless we give them cake. OK, the last bit of paraphrasing isn’t quite fair, but it’s not far off the mark. See note 3.

[7] See note 3.

[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.76286d322377

[9] Harry Frankfurt takes strong issue with the idea that income or wealth inequality is a moral issue. See Frankfurt, H., “Equality as a Moral Ideal” in Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 1 ((Oct., 1987), pp. 21-22. His claim is, rather, “that what is morally important with respect to money is for everyone to have enough” - what he terms “the doctrine of sufficiency”. (p. 22) The importance of Frankfurt’s essay is in his recognition that Rawlsian ethics break down in the economic sphere, pointing out that even Rawls acknowledged that it is rational to want as much of the primary goods - rights and liberties, opportunities and powers, income and wealth - as possible. (p. 45) It is this challenge of defining “sufficiency” when it comes to wealth and income that Jewish law, and in particular certain rules governing charity, may offer a more helpful maxim than Rawls’ Original Position. God understands the psychological damage and danger to our souls from feeling “less than” (see, of course, Exodus 20:14 and also Deuteronomy 7:25). We might frame this new maxim therefore not in reference to inequality between people or nations but rather teleologically, such that  “no person should have less resources than is necessary to produce the same amount of societal good as had fortune otherwise made such resources available to him or her.”

[10] In 1942 economist Joseph Schumpeter coined the phrase “creative destruction” to explain his theory of incessant product and process innovation, what he thought was the essential factor in capitalism’s growth phenomenology. One might argue that Schumpeter’s notion of ‘creative destruction” has its roots in Abram’s smashing of idols in Terah’s shop.

[11] See Siegel, S. “A Jewish View of Economic Justice” in Contemporary Jewish Ethics and Morality: a Reader, Dorff and Newman, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). Pp. 336-43.

[12] See Tamari, M. “Jewish Ethics, the State and Economic Freedom” in The Oxford Handbook of Judaism and Economics, Aaron Levine, ed., (Oxford University Press, 2010)

[13] Tamari, M. With All Your Possessions: Jewish Ethics and Economic Life. (Toby Press, 2014). p. 50

[14] See., e.g. Jeremiah 17:7: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord and whose hope is the Lord.”

[15] We may assume for purposes hereof, that the individuals we cite are not breaking the Halakhah against creating a false impression of piety. We can certainly hope that their motivation is pure, rather than inserting themselves into the debate out of moral exhibitionism. As it is stated in the Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 31a, when a person is brought to judgment, the first question asked is whether he was honest in business, which is a reference to the requirement of having acted at all times - including while at derech eretz (work) - in fear of God.

[16] See, e.g., Jackall, R. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers (Twentieth Anniversary Edition). (Oxford University Press, 2010).

[17] Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2017), pp. 27-28

[18] See Mary L. Hirschfeld, Aquinas and the Market: Toward a Humane Economy. (Harvard University Press, 2018) Professor Hirschfeld argues, among other things that the rational choices that economists presume are made in human commercial activity are devoid of ethics and virtues and therefore do not make an accommodation for non purely economic ends.

[kemetic-dreams]

Traditional medicine in a modern world

By Cosmic Yoruba on April 8, 2014 — Under colonial rule, traditional healers were deemed backward and outlawed. Little was done to investigate the legitimacy of what these healers actually did. Today the prejudice remains, but our ancestors weren’t stupid. We need to clinically research these remedies.

“Black magic” and witchcraft? They are ubiquitous to almost every bustling urban African city, little signs advertising the services of a powerful herbalist, healer, native doctor or astrologist. Sometimes these signs are hand painted, other times they are printed from a computer, yet all claim to verify the power of alternative medicine. The initial reaction of most middle and upperclass Africans is to denounce these signs and anything associated with them as backward or superstitious. A herbalist might be able to cure a headache, but can a healer really cure money woes? Nollywood movies, too, tend to portray traditional herbalists in a negative light; there are always babas and dibias using black magic to help people with spells and charms that always backfire but can be controlled with a vigorous bout of Christian prayer. Granted one should be suspicious of anyone who claims to guarantee wealth coming your way after performing certain rituals but there is more to traditional medicine than superstition.

A signboard showing services of a traditional healer in Malindi town. Wherever you are in almost any African city today, you’re never far from a signboard like this one. Photo: Robert Nyagah

The Yoruba example Traditional medicine has always been linked to spirituality. Among the Yoruba, for example, traditional philosophy views illness and disease as something connected to spirits, witches, wizards or ancestors, and these spirits are present in every animate and inanimate object or being. Furthermore, the wind, stars, sun and moon are also capable of affecting ones health.

Medicines prepared by the traditional Yoruba herbalists involve the use of roots and herbs, along with the odd incantation and ritual. In the bygone era, many herbalists were also hunters. They believed that coming in contact with the spirit of the forest made them well versed in diverse flora and fauna, and indeed they were wells of knowledge of plants and trees. So in addition to their knowledge of spirits and deities, occult arts, charms and incantations, rituals and sacrifices, they knew a lot about the healing properties of plants.

Clearly this way of thinking is very different from what we know today from Western medicine. Yet, from what we know, these medicines worked for our ancestors (which shouldn’t be altogether surprising since many modern remedies are based on plant extracts) and are still used today. In Yoruba traditional medicine today you will find specialists in bone setting, paediatric care, general medicine, stroke, hypertension and more. Healing is done using herbs like bitter leaves and basil, as well as trees and plants such as the cinchona tree (it’s got quinine in its bark), the neem tree, and of course the miraculous aloe vera plant.

Honey is also used in combination with different herbs. An example of a herbal remedy would be a mix of bitter leaf and basil to reduce high blood pressure. A prescription for diarrhea may be made from a sieved concoction of guava leaves to be taken four times daily, while Dutchman’s pipe, bitter kola seeds and peeled off grains of paradise are dried and ground together and taken with pap in order to ease abdominal pain. Yoruba traditional medicine also places importance on the use of water, either taken plain or mixed with herbs and tree barks.

The spiritual aspect comes in the form of incantations, usually spoken over the medicine before it is given to the sick person. Rituals and sacrifices are done to appease the supernatural entity that caused the sickness, while amulets such as engraved silver rings may also be administered for protection against these spirits. Some amulets are ground herbs to be eaten, but they can also be rubbed on the body as lotion or used to bathe as soap.

A traditional healer stand in Accra, Ghana

Traditional healing in a modern world All this will sound strange to anyone who grew up with a familiarity of injections, tablets and pills only. Nonetheless to dismiss traditional medicine or this pre-colonial, indigenous African philosophy as mere superstition would be presumptuous.

Our ancestors were not stupid, and while it’s impossible now to know what percentage of their “patients” recovered from their illnesses due to the placebo effect and what as a result of the administered herbs, the herbalists would not have been in business for long if their remedies had been completely ineffective. Yoruba herbalists interviewed by Olugbenga Olagunju insist that in pre-colonial days, people lived long and healthy lives due to this knowledge of herbs and magic. Meanwhile in places like Uganda and Rwanda, colonial European explorers wrote of witnessing local “medicine men” performing caesarean sections with banana wine used as an intoxicant and a cleanser, and the wound sutured with needles and a paste made from roots.

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, the line separating the healing part from the spiritual part became blurred, as did the difference between herbalists and those who seem to offer only bad luck to your enemies and good fortune to you and believe none of this is possible without an incisor from an endangered species. As read above, traditional medicine in its purest form is concerned with disease and healing. While the herbalists and their clients might believe sickness is caused by spirits, herbal remedies were/are still administered to do the actual curing.

Just pray and God will take care of everything

Today, there are Nigerians who eschew any form of medicine while believing prayer is all they need to be rid of their illness. And these days many traditional herbalists claim to bring about wealth and riches, love and success as though the lack of any of these things is itself a genuine disease. This corruption of the practice of traditional medicine probably began following the PR damage done to the profession by colonialism (colonial “rulers” basically outlawed traditional healers/herbalists, and in the process started a process of prejudice that still exists today among the middle and upper classes), and was exacerbated by the fact that we now live in a capitalist world where money rules everything and everyone is looking to enrich themselves by whatever means. Thus it is no surprise to read of a so-called traditional herbalist defrauding desperate jobseekers of N510,000 ($3114).

Popular still, but risky business Nonetheless, traditional medicine remains popular, especially among Africans who live in regions that are far removed from pharmacies and hospitals (although claims about the majority using traditional medicine should be taken with a pinch of salt). Herbs are seen as a healthier alternative to more expensive Western drugs. There is also the belief that Western trained doctors cannot detect certain sicknesses. For some Africans, traditional herbs are the only form of medicine they know from birth to death.

Hedranthera barteri (used to make abgo)

Speaking with some of my extended family members who routinely consume traditional herbal mixtures we call agbo, the general consensus is that herbal medicine can cleanse the system and that it really works. I remember my mother giving me agbo as a child, I threw up immediately. Talking to her about it recently, she told me that some parents believe giving their children agbo is necessary because of all the sweets and chocolates kids typically consume. She also confided that a family friend had given her agbo for her backache and that the herbal mixture did relieve her from that pain. But Western-trained doctors and healthcare providers tend to dismiss indigenous African forms of medicine due to lack of clinical evidence, and there have been warnings against drinking herbal mixtures due to the preponderance of fake ones. People have died from drinking fake herbal drinks.

Agbo without the liquid. And without a Nigerian food and drug agency label.

The need for regulation We don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Clearly, with countless quack healers handing out fake herbal remedies that can blind or kill – and generating prejudice against all traditional herbalists in the process – the industry is in desperate need of regulation. But traditional medicine itself shouldn’t be discouraged. Health ministries across the continent should cooperate with the more trustworthy traditional healers to research traditional remedies to establish clinical-based evidence for their efficacy.  Some of this is being done already: there’s a journal of traditional, complementary and alternative medicines for anyone interested in keeping abreast of latest developments and a Medicinal Plants in Nigeria research project being run by Professor Tolu Odugbemi (check his plant gallery), but the bulk of the research into the efficacy and healing properties of plants and traditional remedies is being conducted by western researchers. This is hope though. I once caught a documentary about a student from Benin studying traditional medicine at a university in Japan, and I know there are other students from other African countries specialising in the same subjects at universities in China. So perhaps it’s only a matter of time.

In the meantime though, while drink and drugs in Nigeria must carry a registration number from the Nigerian food and drug agency (NAFDAC) on their label, I am yet to see a NAFDAC registration number on the bottles of agbo consumed by members of my family. The only African country I know of that has moved to regularise traditional medicine is Kenya where the Kilifi County Assembly is set to introduce a motion that, if passed, will see traditional healers vetted and issued with licenses. This is a step in the right direction – vetting traditional healers should reduce the number of quack doctors and the cheats, and removing the criminal element should help people of the popular image of traditional healers as evil witchdoctors.

[garywonghc]

You are loving kindness wisdom energy

by Lama Thubten Yeshe

Many young people today have lost their identity. They have difficulty understanding who they are, so they try to identify with different roles, different ideas. But then, not finding their identity in any of these roles, they become lost. Disturbed, they lead meaningless lives doing whatever comes to mind, without much thought. Such things are happening in this world.

From the moment we were born until now, each of us has tried to emanate in many different ways. Many of us have emanated as hippies and movie stars or as terrorists or politicians, capitalists or communists. We have tried almost everything, only to discover in the end that whatever we have tried to identify with has turned out to be illusion, not reality.

These are good examples. You can see how your concrete concept of “me” tries to identify with some outer philosophical viewpoint, thinking, “I am this; I am this.” But then “this” is not what you find that you are. Instead, today you have discovered that you have loving kindness wisdom energy. You know you have this within you. You should trust this energy and identify with it instead of trusting outer projections. Your loving kindness wisdom energy must be cultivated, fertilised, protected, and tended well, like a garden. It can be nourished and developed and unified as the deity Gyalwa Gyatso.

We carry within us a heavy blanket of concepts and projections about ourselves. Over time we have constructed a kind of concentration camp within us, one iron bar, then another and another and another — so many concrete projections. In order to break through these projections, we need a profound vision of method and wisdom. We need to clothe ourselves in the very finest image: the union of great compassion and nonduality. This is your identity — your identity and your reality. You should wear this image in order to break through your limited, closed projections of who you are.

In our twentieth-century world there is so much hatred, disunity, and conflict. People are fighting for material possessions, are trying to conquer each other, never feeling love for one another. You can see this going on everywhere. It is incredible. Sometimes, even with a beloved friend, when you are both angry, you can’t feel your friend’s love and you can’t feel love for them. So we all understand how much the world needs peace and love — each individual and mankind as a whole. Therefore, we can easily see how logical and how worthwhile it is to practice such a profound yoga method. With this practice there is no need for hesitation; there can be no philosophical objections. It is very scientific, very down to earth.

When we talk about loving kindness, we are just using words. But mere words do not help. We may know the words, but if we don’t actively energise loving kindness in our nervous system, then we have achieved nothing. This yoga method unifies loving kindness with our nervous system. This is exactly what we need, and this is why I am requesting you not to waste the time and energy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. We should put concentrated effort and dedication into our retreat, then at least we will have been telling the truth when we promised, during the initiation, to engage seriously in this practice. And, of course, we will be doing something worthwhile.

Love and compassion come in different forms. There is pure love and pure compassion, which manifest in the form of Gyalwa Gyatso. But there is also selfish love. If we think about it, we can see that selfish love can be either positive or negative. It has both qualities. On the one hand, selfish love and selfish motivation are based on mental projections that fixate on their objects, such as family, husband, wife, or nationality, as “mine.” While the love you feel is, in fact, selfish, at the same time because of it, you give and share something. You give to your brother, your sister, your husband or wife thinking, “Because they are my relatives, because we Italian people are the same, because we all eat pizza, I therefore have an obligation to give them what I can.”

Selfish love, although limited, does have a kind of manipulative power to give, to serve. It has power that can aid in transforming you into a better, warmer person. For example, many men say, “Oh, I am not a bad man. I take care of twenty children and my wife. I send them to school, I give them good food, and I love them. They have a good home, and I do everything I can for them. Because of this, when I die, I shall die happy and satisfied.” There is some satisfaction in this. Do you understand? The motivation may be selfish and limited, but one’s actions bring benefit to others, and as a result a kind of transformation takes place.

Even though selfish love does have these positive attributes, it is clear that pure love and pure compassion serve in a much more profound, more dedicated way and bring about far more profound and far-reaching results. By practicing the profound highest yoga tantra method of Gyalwa Gyatso — the pure vision of the Dalai Lama — we are engaging in a mental exercise to eliminate the selfish mind completely. Through this profound practice of transformation, we can develop pure limitless love and compassion and thus experience directly their effectiveness in our own lives. We can experience this pure vision for ourselves. Because we so often see each other as objects of anger and hatred due to our mental projections, we are sorely in need of this pure vision. It is genuinely worthwhile and, happily, there is no doubt at all that we can achieve it.

[commentaryonhowwelive]

October 2017. Age 25. Journal Entry.

Tuesday, October 10th, 2017

“The fact that I'm having a hard time sitting down to write about what makes me happy is itself indicative of what makes me happy. I have this desire to extend my inner happiness into the physical world in an attempt to create an unchanging and unlimited source of happiness. This is impossible, but I incessantly try anyways.

As I make more money, try to stay into excellent shape, constantly move from place to place and change jobs, sleep with random girls, it's all an attempt to create a source of happiness from outside of myself.

I don't like the idea of finding happiness only from within, because the human brain simply doesn't work that way. If we’re living in miserable conditions, our bodies are hardwired to want to be in a different state. If we’re too cold or too hot, we strive to reach a temperature that is comfortable. Our biology simply doesn’t allow such fine tuned machines to work under too extreme of conditions. If we’re hungry, our stomachs will hurt and we will become irritable. As the phrase goes, “society is only three square meals away from anarchy”. This states that we are human animals whether we like it or not, and we must conform in some way to society in order to create livable conditions for ourselves. 

The capitalist society that we live in creates desire; which I find inherently dangerous. However, we as humans will always have a strong sense of desire for things that can advance our genes because it’s necessary for our survival. When our primate ancestors saw a fertile mate, or a companion with a piece of fruit in their hand, you can bet that they had a strong desire for what they saw, or else they didn’t survive. 

In our modern age, we still have a desire for what we see, that’s why capitalism is still works. Except we don’t beat our friends over the head for their apple, we just think about wanting it then probably go buy our own later. Even though we don’t act immediately on our desires as much any more, the desires remain as we are still human animals. We are imperfect beings, in realizing this, we have learned about our biology and instincts and have exploited them via capitalism through incessant consumerism and gearing our marketing toward our biological needs that sometimes we don’t even realize are there. Commercials play our emotions, we use bright colored signs, we give free samples in stores to stimulate our appetite to make us want to buy more food.

So instead of turning away completely from capitalism and shaking your fist at the CEO’s of the world, I say we embrace it with a healthy dose of skepticism. Emphasis on the term healthy. Allowing ourselves to feel our feelings and act on our needs and desires is not only healthy, it's necessary. Our goal should be to find a way to release our urges and act as our bodies want to act while at the same time, living in line with capitalism to the point that we have financial freedom.

People aren’t evil, excessive capitalism is evil.

Capitalism facilitates hyperbolized human tendencies which quickly turn into what we consider the 7 Deadly Sins. When you have the opportunity to make $500,000 a year, it’s really hard to say no to that, even if you’re cognizant that the wage could feed 15 less fortunate families but you’re going to use it to go on exotic vacations. Greed happens not because humans are evil, but because capitalism allows it.

Those less fortunate families would more likely than not fall victim to the same faults and hoard money if given the opportunity.

Again, capitalism as a system isn’t inherently evil. It is an imperfect means of societal progression which leads to the exploitation the primal urges of us imperfect humans.

Once we get to the point that we can make enough money to live the life we want to live within capitalism (since cash is king and a near sure fire way to create the objective life we want), we can then attempt to feel true freedom and feel the feelings we have, acting as true and authentic beings. As Maslow’s hierarchy of needs dictates, we must take care of our basic needs that we as humans need, then our goals above that are subjective, i.e. self actualization and who we want to associate with.

You need food water shelter to make yourself happy. This is because you’re a biological organism, therein requiring certain objective fuel sources. But once this has been settled, we can achieve happiness in any way our cerebral cortices deem fit. You need a certain level of happiness within before externalities can make you happy. You need an edifice to build on top of. If you’re starving in a giant beautiful house, you can’t appreciate the house. If you have a million dollars but you’re homeless, that money is good for nothing. If you didn’t sleep last night, it doesn’t matter how many people are around you that you love; all you want to do is sleep. Thus, we must care for our human needs and urges before we can approach the next level of validation. The top level of validation is human actualization.

Everyone is somewhere along the capitalism acceptance scale. Some are fully within the throes of a capitalist lifestyle of earning and spending, creating unneeded waste in order to fulfill their shallow desires. Others do only what they need to do to care for themselves, then they choose to ignore the chasing of money for the rest of their available time for it does not appeal to them; they have different metrics for satisfaction. Say John makes $100,000 a year but really only needs $30,000 to live the lifestyle that makes him happy, so he does so. However, Don also makes $100,000 but digs himself into crippling debt by living a life of opulence outside of his means. They make the same amount of money, yet John is likely to be much happier because he lives within his means. His lifestyle doesn’t require the spending of more money than he has, putting himself in debt to others, yet he’s happier.

I can see the hierarchy at play in the moment to moment in myself as I can allow my mind to wonder pleasantly insofar as I'm with others, waiting for something, or getting something done. I'd much rather sit in a coffee shop and allow my mind to wander and write if I'm with someone I know, satisfying the social need immediately before allowing myself to self actualize. Writing for me is an act that leads to self actualization, yet I have a fear of writing if writing is all I’m doing. I feel like I’m missing something, like I should be doing something else, like I don’t deserve to be sitting here and just writing. I know that I deserve the capability to write whenever and however much I want, yet my fear of being alone outweighs my desire to write. Thus, I tend to write only when something else is happening that validates myself in the present.

If I am teaching a class and I have 20 minutes of down time, I feel comfortable writing.

If I’m waiting for a friend to show up somewhere, I feel comfortable writing.

If I’m on a plane and have no where to go, I feel comfortable writing.

If I’m sitting in the living room with my significant other, her working, I feel comfortable writing.

It’s a belief that writing should be on the back burner, something to fill time, no matter how meaningful it may be or how much it leads to satisfaction when I have a finished a piece. 

I thrive on chaos. Insofar as the chaos isn’t stress inducing, so I guess I could say that I thrive on having a lot of things going on all at once, because the more going on, the less I’m thinking about myself and more about the world around me.

When I’m by myself, I start over thinking. A thought goes into a spider web of this then this and maybe that, but also that and if this and this makes that then it also creates this and that and maybe these too! Thoughts don’t stop when alone, but quickly and consistently reacting to a chaotic environment is the antidote. Having to respond to my environment puts the thoughts on the back burner. I’m not worried about whether I could be doing better, whether that guy is making more money than me, whether I could be doing something better with my life. I think this applies to an extreme many of facets of life, in that the less you think about things, the happier you are. Ignorance in bliss, and if I’m busy with something all day and allocating all of my mental resources towards that, I don’t have time to worry. A busy person is usually a happy person.

Occupying your mind with anything that isn't negative is ideal. It's better to piss away your time with simple happiness than to have worry over take you. I’m better off delivering pizzas, a seemingly simple task, rather than worrying about myself.

General sadness isn't necessarily what we’re trying to avoid. Because when we think of being sad, at least I tend to have a grossly oversimplified idea of what it is, without really objectifying it. What we’re trying to actually avoid is bad decisions, which are predated typically by worry, fear, anxiety, or melancholy. When we’re in fear, anxious, or upset, we make poor decisions. We regress, or overeat, or drink too much, or don’t aim for anything positive. Thus, having simple yet positive tasks to occupy our time is better than engaging in negative activities like watching TV, over eating, playing video games, or doing drugs.

Looking back at our ancestors; their primitive lifestyle and what they needed to do to survive, it makes sense to somewhat mimic that in our own lives. Create our own quests and whatnot. They didn’t have time to be worried or anxious about the unknown, because they were preoccupied with the task at hand, which in essence was always working towards something. 

In addition to the actions that we take, we must always take into consideration the inaction that is just as important. This is manifested in the act of selective ignorance. We can experience a lack of motivation due to the sheer amount of pain in the world, or all of the things that we know we’ll never be able to overcome or accomplish or change. We must ignore it, selectively of course, so as to not pass that threshold of ignorance to a fault. I could spend all day ruminating on the lack of food in 3rd world countries, or the evil disproportion of wealth in capitalist countries, or that fact that I’m crummy at understanding computer code, but what’s the point? How will that assist the human? It won’t, unless it is acted upon in a positive way to solve the problem.

I once read about a man who made a lot of money at a very young age. It was a combination of luck and skill. I was jealous of him. What did he have that I didn’t? Why him? Why me? Then I found out he died. That's all of our ends. I immediately felt more fortunate than him, because I live in this moment. I have what he doesn’t. It’s a manifestation of my primal urges to have what others don’t, to be the leader, to be the alpha. I shouldn’t feel that way, but I do.

Anger is often manifested as putting too much emotional stock in others. Any time I’m angry, I can almost always relate it to someone else’s actions, or the fact that I’m upset that I’m not as good as someone else. Thus I’m putting to much emotional stock in others.

That’s all for now.

[maidinyourhometown-blog]

Are Millennials Killing Industries

Industries Dying Out

According to the many attention grabbing headlines of today, millennials are responsible for killing everything from paper towels to diamonds. On one hand we simply have less money in our pockets than our parents did to spend on frivolous purchases. However, perhaps more importantly, millennials are killing industries off left and right because we tend to spend what little money we have on products that will support causes we believe in, even if that means paying a bit more for the same thing. As the first generation to live their lives in the shadow of climate change, there is perhaps no more unifying cause among millennials than the fight to protect our environment. This is bad news for traditional paper towels, but every social trend in capitalist America has a marketing plan jogging behind it. Enter the rise of recycled paper towels. The shift toward environmentally friendly cleaning products not just for house cleaning is directly attributed to the shift in consumer prioritization away from cost and convenience towards conscientiousness, brought on by a new generation of consumers unified by their concern for the environment.

Marketing to Millennials

According to Millennial Marketing, 50% of millennials are more likely to purchase from a company if that purchase supports a meaningful cause, and 37% are more likely to do so even if that means paying more (Who Are Millenials, n.d.). This has given rise to the Green Marketing trend, where familiar products such as paper towels get revamped and rebranded as environmentally friendly. The challenge here is in identifying what it means to be green, a headache for both the producer and the consumer. Inconsistent labeling and standards combined with tone-deaf messaging can throw industries off the mark as they try to capture the zeitgeist of millennial consumerism. At the same time, consumers struggle with misinformation as they try to assess the greenness of each and every product under the sun (Bluelinemedia, n.d.). Essentially, not all products are easily rebranded under the green marketing trend. However, cleaning products are uniquely positioned to succeed. By swapping “harmful” chemicals with “natural” ones that are safer for your baby and the environment, marketers and consumers have something to feel good about.

Cultural Shift

In the recent years, a cultural shift has been seen in the manufacturing and marketing of cleaning products. This shift has led towards an emphasis on environmentally friendly, or green, cleaning products. The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines green cleaning products as “less hazardous products that have positive environmental attributes” (EPA, 2018). However, to further define green cleaning, we can look to other resources to find the definition not a physical object but rather a concept. To quote the Canadian Green Cleaners Association, “there is no hard fast definition for ‘green’ because green is a concept, not a thing. Green can be viewed as a process. . . Cleaning green is more than switching a few products or equipment” (CGCA, 2015). Through a better understanding of the topic, we can see that the shift towards green cleaning products is due to a cultural, environmental, and economic shift towards greener living, all three of which are thoroughly intertwined.

The first facet to examine is the cultural change towards greener practices due to climate change. National Geographic focused climate changes impact on the U.S. economy, stating that the entirety of the economy would have to adapt to new markets spurned by the changing environment (Borunda, 2018). Seeing as climate change affects the entire globe, this economic adaptation has manifested worldwide, with a more environmentally-minded and educated society serving as a driving point.

As of 2019, Pew Research Center polled 40 countries to decide the populace’s opinion on global warming. Their research showed that a global median of 68% of the population believe climate change to be a major threat. (Fagan & Huang, 2019). With the global populace holding climate change to be a severe issue, the popularity of green cleaning products marketed to be better for the environment rose drastically.

The Reasons for the Surge of Popularity in Eco-Friendly Cleaning Products

In today’s era where the disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor constantly increases, product cost plays the biggest role in decision making. However, as new information is released regarding the raw materials used in the production of commonly used household products, more and more individuals switch their deciding factor from cost efficiency to health impacts. Harsh chemicals and the lasting effects that they have on the body and environment become a deterrent, forcing people to consider other options. It is in this way that the environmentally friendly cleaning supplies have been able to gain momentum. Ready-made alternatives and Do it Yourself (DIY) videos have allowed the eco-friendly alternative to secure a major following in recent years, as consumers decide there is no price too high for peace of mind (Watson, 2017). Backed by the promise of less harsh ingredients, easy to follow DIY tutorials, and the developing environmental consciousness of society, eco-friendly cleaning products have seen a rise in popularity.

According to Barbarossa and De Pelsmacker (2014), the household consumption of products is the leading cause of most environmental issues. Improper waste disposal of generic household cleaning supplies leads to the generation of a larger carbon footprint. Along with this, the products usually contain raw materials which are unsuitable to be used for any extended period of time. The numerous symbols and safety precautions on the containers of such items seem out of place on a product advertised for the household. Although their eco-friendly counterparts are not entirely free from ingredients with adverse effects, they are considerably safer. Stricter regulations with regards to transparency, and a variety of conformity seals, allow consumers the luxury of knowing exactly what they’re paying for.

Going Green: The Benefits of Eco-Friendly Cleaning Products

The rapid changing of the Earth’s climate has become a matter of global urgency and importance. More and more sectors such as the cleaning and hospitality industry are, in one way or another, trying its best to help mitigate this problem. With environmental awareness in mind, the demand for eco-friendly cleaning products increases as the level of urgency due to climate change also increases.

For the hospitality industry, the least it can do is to reduce toxic wastes coming from its cleaning products. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (2019), common household cleaning and maintenance products can be corrosive, flammable, reactive, and toxic. Needless to say, its waste products do more harm than good in the environment. The chemicals from these products can enter the atmosphere as pollutants when used or disposed. When mixed with flood water, these chemicals can penetrate the soil which will eventually be absorbed by plants or trees. Depending on the amount and nature of the chemicals, the consequences can be fatal.

Eco-friendly or “green” cleaning products, on the other hand, utilizes non-toxic raw materials such as baking soda, vinegar, lemon, citric acid, olive oil, and many more. Shifting to green cleaning products not only do well with the outside environment but it also improves indoor air quality (Flowers, 2015). Aside from poor ventilation, chemicals from common cleaning products are also major contributors to poor indoor air quality. Using natural products such as essential oils cleanses the air and leaves a refreshing scent for the convenience of the residents. This implies that using green cleaning products entails favorable effects to both outside and inside environment.

References

Harrington, J. (2018, February 05). 5 Reasons Why You Should Use ‘Green’ Cleaning Products. Retrieved May 09, 2019, from https://learn.compactappliance.com/green-cleaning-products/

Sholl, J., Ohlson, K., White, J., & Eldred, S. M. (2018, March 22). 8 Hidden Toxins: What’s Lurking in Your Cleaning Products? Retrieved May 09, 2019, from https://experiencelife.com/article/8-hidden-toxins-whats-lurking-in-your-cleaning-products/

Flowers, J. (2015). Why You (Probably) Have Poor Indoor Air Quality. Retrieved from https://learn.compactappliance.com/causes-of-poor-indoor-air-quality/

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2019). Household Hazardous Waste [Ebook]. New York. Retrieved from https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/cleaning.pdf

Barbarossa, C., & Pelsmacker, P. D. (2014). Positive and Negative Antecedents of Purchasing

Eco-friendly Products: A Comparison Between Green and Non-green Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(2), 229-247. https://doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2425-z

Watson, S. (2017, November 02). Are Green Cleaners Better for You? Retrieved from https://www.webmd.com/asthma/news/20171102/are-green-cleaners-better-for-your-health

Borunda, A. Climate Impacts Grow, and U.S. Must Act, Says New Report. (2018, November 23). Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/climate-change-US-report0/

Fagan, M., Huang, C. A Look at How People Around the World View Climate Change. (2019, April 18). Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/

Greening Your Purchase of Cleaning Products: A Guide For Federal Purchasers. (2018,                    November 28). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/greening-your-purchase-cleaning-products-guide-federal-purchasers

What Does Green Cleaning Mean? (2015). Retrieved from http://www.greencleanersassociation.ca/index.php/ct-menu-item-19/ct-menu-item-49

Bluelinemedia, W. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2019, from https://www.greenbuying.co.uk/thegrowthofgreenmarketing_622.php

Who Are Millennials. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2019, from http://www.millennialmarketing.com/who-are-millennials/

[andersa]

Fully Automated Luxury Communism *IS* Our Future

I have been planning to write on this topic, but a recently featured article in OneZero inspired me to kick it off now. This is my rebuttal.

  In his analysis of the book Fully Automated Luxury Communism by Aaron Bastani, Robin Whitlock wrote an article that he felt outlined the reasons why Bastani is incorrect in his belief that one day (perhaps sooner than we may realize), the world will transition to a one-world, communist-style form of government. I haven’t read Bastani’s book, but, I have been an avid supporter of this concept for nearly a decade after watching the movie Zeitgiest: Moving Forward.

Over the years, I have also engaged in conversations about this topic with literally thousands of people, and most of them repeat the same fallacies over and over in their denial that such a thing could ever possibly happen. I have found that many people have several cognitive biases that hinder their ability to look forward into the future and see what it could potentially look like.

Often, they believe it will look and behave very similarly (if not worse) than what we have today, maybe just with a few more gadgets to play with. In fact, most people are completely unaware of their own biases, let alone that there are 175 known biases that influence our rationale.

Of course, the most obvious is the negative connotation that the word “communism" brings to mind. Immediately, the thought of walking skeletons forced into labor camps spurs a knee-jerk reaction to immediately stop listening to any argument that can even remotely be deemed “pro-communist". But, just to touch on some of the other common biases that influence this conversation (and most people’s daily lives) are:

Declinism- when we remember the past as better     than it was, while simultaneously believing the future will be worse than     it likely will be.

Just-World- Many of us who live in developed     nations like to believe the world is a just place. It makes us feel     secure. To think that somewhere in the world someone is dying of hunger,     can overwhelm us with guilt if we think about it while we enjoy an     expensive meal at a nice restaurant. So, we chase away the guilt by     reminding ourselves that we work hard and we’re good people, so we deserve     this nice meal. Anyone who doesn’t have access to such things is just not     trying hard enough, so they get what they deserve. Of course, this bias     can cloud our judgment of other people and their situations. It helps to     cloak the madness of the system we have built. It’s also a bias that     politicians tend to exploit to get you to vote for them, and one that     makes people believe the world in the future will be pretty much the same     place it is today.

Belief & Confirmation Bias: Our beliefs shape     our perception. After all, the human condition requires we believe in     something for it to be real. When one believes in something, they will     find or fabricate as much evidence as necessary to support that belief;     likewise for something one does not believe in. Our brains automatically     default to our belief structures when analyzing nearly any subject. And,     it can sometimes be difficult to examine the evidence with an open mind     that may challenge those beliefs.

Dunning-Kruger: The more you know, the less     confident you are. Fools rush in without understanding. The wise     understand how little they know and pause for consideration.

Framing: It is amazing what a frame can do for a     portrait or painting. The right frame really makes the piece pop and     increase the appreciation of those beholding the piece of art. The same     goes for our brains. Major media, consumer data companies, and marketers     understand how their piece of art is framed MATTERS. A LOT. It is often     seen that they will frame things in different ways for different consumer     tastes and preferences. It is an extremely easy way to manipulate the masses.     And, once one recognizes this bias, one begins to see the frames around     everything.

Familiarity: Our comfort zone. Whether in the     physical sense or the literal, most of us have a pretty small comfort zone     surrounding every aspect of our lives. If something encroaches without     permission, or we are challenged to venture outside of our zones, it can     be stressful and uncomfortable. While the huge world outside of our zones     can be harsh and unforgiving, it can also hold the key to amazing new     discoveries in all areas of life.

Self-Attribution: A common example of this is     when working in a group, you feel like you’re doing more than everyone     else. The interesting thing about this is: if you ask 10 people in a group     if they feel like they’re doing more than others, you’ll likely get 9     responses that support their belief they are working harder than everyone     else.

Sunk-cost: You’ve invested a lot of time, effort,     and money into a project (or your career). But, it’s not going as you had     hoped. It’s difficult to walk away from something that is not serving its     intended purpose.

Anchoring: This is when you’re so focused on one     goal, that you miss out on opportunities to have a better outcome because     you refuse to deviate from the initial goal.

Survival: The celebs (and capitalists) make it     all look so easy. Like anyone can go to Hollywood and become a huge star.     But, what we often don’t hear about are all the failed talent who just     didn’t get the right break into the industry. If one does not succeed, one     is simply failing at trying hard enough (similar to the Just-World bias).

There are many others that fit into this conversation. The ambiguity effect (avoiding options where the outcome is unknown), anthropocentric thinking or anthropomorphism (common in discussions about AI), attentional bias (marketing and constantly being told capitalism is the best way), and so on.

But, even FALC supporters are sometimes clouded by their own biases. In addition to the few of the above, automation bias (excessively relying on automated systems which can give erroneous information that overrides correct decisions) is one. Berkson’s Paradox ( The tendency to misinterpret statistical experiments involving conditional probabilities) is another. And, especially the Bias Blind Spot (the tendency to recognize bias more in others, less in oneself).

So, regardless of these biases on both sides of the conversation, people want to see hard facts and plausible ideas about how this future may come to fruition or why it will not.

The truth is: NONE of us know for sure.

But, there are some things that should be considered before completely shutting the door on the idea of humanity living in a Fully Automated Luxury Communist structure in the future. So, back to the original article I am rebutting by Mr. Whitlock. I seriously doubt he read the book, though that is simply an assumption. But, this assumption stems from the fact that many of his rebuttals to the concept are deeply entrenched in a capitalist mindset, disregarding the very essence of the book.

1                                    Assumption One

For instance, many of the government labor statistics he quotes are based on a flawed system of tracking that the US is notorious for. He also claims that automation is a “long way off and not necessarily replacing jobs”. This is also a flawed analysis due to Moore’s law. But, Moore’s law aside — some even believe Moore’s law is dead or evolving— he goes on to state that according to McKinsey digital who stated two years ago that less than 5% of jobs are able to be automated over the next decade. That is a seemingly naive assumption compared to the breakthroughs we have seen in the past two years from companies like Boston Dynamics and their amazing robots.

And, to counter that McKinsey article showing an example of a lumberjack, or construction and raising outdoor animals:

So, now we get into the cost of all this automation. Sure, it is a prohibitive factor for many, especially small businesses. For now, that is. In accordance with Moore’s law, as things become smaller and more advanced, though, the prices tend to drop. The more assistance provided to small businesses (whether by government supplementation or not), the faster these technologies will drop in price and advance.

Then, by quoting articles that are years old (2014 & 2017), the argument is made that, for instance, self-driving cars are facing major logistical and regulatory issues. Again, without considering the major advancements made recently. In fact, he very conspicuously left out Tesla in this analysis. Or, for that matter, the drone taxis that started in Dubai in 2017, and are now being adopted and accelerated by Uber and Boeing.

So, by assuming that automation is not going to replace most jobs anytime soon, we are really turning a blind-eye on the advancements going on around the world.

2                                    Assumption Two

Moving on to asteroid-mining. Mr. Whitlock used an article from 2012 (nearly a decade old) to prove the point that we were a decade away from identifying suitable asteroids to mine. In 2015, Obama signed a law into effect called “Space Law” allowing private companies to mine asteroids. And, the example used — Planetary Resources — struggling only to be acquired by Consensys, Inc. (a blockchain company) is an extremely poor (on purpose?) example, considering that companies like (to name only a few) Deep Space Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Bigelow Aerospace, and even The Blue Origin aerospace company owned by Jeff Bezos are going all-in on this concept.

In the article, he also tries to point out that these ventures being profitable are the highest concern. That is, again, a false assumption. While it is true that funding needs to happen to make these a reality, one must also realize that funding, in itself, is a fallacy. By this, I mean:

The idea of fiat currency having any sort of value is false. It can be created out of thin air. It is either simply a piece of paper or a number on a computer monitor. Nearly the entire world uses fiat currency.

Nor is the number of materials hidden in the asteroids “speculative, at best”. That is his own assumption, without any real-time understanding of how the above-mentioned companies conduct research to identify lucrative asteroids.

As noted in the original article, Mars One’s for-profit business went bankrupt (though the non-profit side is still running). That is a sign that for-profit in this sector will struggle. Perhaps an even bigger signal that non-profit will eventually win in this sector. As an added point of interest, space is a HUGE business and destined only to grow:

 The point is not profit. The point is to succeed at nearly any cost.

3                                    Assumption Three

Aside from the fact that the vast majority of people are essentially wage-slaves who toil away at mind-numbing tasks to make their bosses a little richer, this entire area completely leaves out the concept of AI and quantum computing. Mr. Whitlock is stuck in his own biases that only a company can do what is being talked about and that companies can only be run by humans. While this is certainly the case today, the advent of AI is not to be scoffed at. In fact, the entire premise of arguments against a system like FALC is akin to the people who 20 years ago scoffed at the idea of having hand-held computers that we know as smartphones. It is an archaic way of thinking… Fearful, even. The truth is: We are on the precipice of technological upheaval never before witnessed by humanity. We better get our heads right to understand the challenges we will face and how to make life better for all humans as a consequence of technology. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in dystopian lives as described by some of the dystopian authors people love to quote.

This concept is not some glorified hippie utopia (utopia is highly subjective, btw) of rainbows and lollipops all day. Stop fooling yourselves and diminishing the world we live in and are about to arrive in. This is the reality we face. When people are displaced from employment and when precious metals & minerals are no longer rare, it will not happen suddenly and it will not be a hundred years away. Try the next 10–30 years, MAXIMUM, for us to really start seeing these effects. Sure, you and I may not be around to see it, but my kids will be.

We need to expand our highly myopic understanding of what is in front of us. If you don’t, others will, and it will be you who is left in the dust.

DISRUPT, OR BE DISRUPTED. That is the motto of the 21st-century.

Finally, yes, the future may be run by corporate empires. That is a scary prospect. In the near future, it may be necessary to eliminate the idea of corporations. All other details aside, the idea of competition is only a hindrance to the advancement of these technologies. Why split the resources (money, labor, etc.) between so many different companies hoping for a profit for a few individuals? In many ways, this is a ridiculous notion. It means fewer resources for each company and wasted time between advancements. This problem is becoming more and more obvious as technology advances.

And, all of this is in addition to the people who are working to cure aging, upload minds into the cloud, and make us into something else to redefine what it means to be human like the Transhumanist movement. If one doesn’t take all of these considerations into account when thinking about the future, they are doing themselves and the future a disservice. Because even though you may stick your head in the sand to avoid seeing it, millions of others are working toward this future whether they realize it or not.

There is so much more I could add to this, but then I would need to write a book… A book explaining Fully Automated Luxury Communism…

[michellesafikidnapping-blog]

Why Should I Buy Canadian Property?

Why Real Estate?

There's even more take advantage of permitted with real estate than any type of various other type of investment - financial institutions will lend investors 75% or even more of the total worth of their acquisition, and often at relatively low rates of interest. This high-leverage capability leads to a higher-than-average return for investors.

Appreciation

People will always need a location to live. When a residential property is acquired in a market with a growing populace, yearly the residential property will raise in value due to the fact that more people will be relocating to that market and will certainly be driving the demand for housing up. In the very same scenario, a rental residential property's financial obligation owed will decrease with time, as renters slowly pay down the principal on your home loan.

Capital

Couple of assets matches the cash flow capabilities of real estate, a smart financial investment will yield a constant stream of earnings from the beginning, and also this earnings will continue to boost with time as the home loan is paid for as well as rents rise.

Predictability

Historically, property has been more predictable than supplies as well as has actually brought much less risk. Have you come across any person seeing their residential or commercial property go away over night?

Control

Real estate is a concrete asset, hence permitting owners to include value to their residential properties through renovations as well as effective administration. Unlike supplies and also common funds, capitalists can control their capital by proactively lowering expenses or enhancing leas.

Security against Inflation

Property returns are directly linked to the rental fees that occupants pay. As inflation rises, cost of living boosts, as well as lease increases. Therefore, realty earnings tend to increase during durations of rising cost of living.

  Tax benefits

Having a financial investment building might offer some tax advantages, consisting of various federal government tax obligation breaks.

Why Canadian Real Estate?

While the globe is in monetary turmoil, foreign capitalists are looking to Canada like never in the past. Where else worldwide do you have a steady government and also steady financial system, with a confirmed supply of resources to keep the distribution of items and also solutions effectively through rough economic times? A lot more recently, Canada has ended up being a safe-haven for worldwide capital from Asia, Europe as well as the Center East. There are numerous reasons why Canadian realty is so attractive. Here are the "Four F's" that put Canada in advance of various other nations in stability and development:

Food

With the destruction of Japan's land and China one negative harvest far from starvation, the worldwide demand for food is obvious. As our word's population increases at a rapid price, the need for food worldwide places Canada's food products and also solutions in high need.

Fertilization

Needed to support the food we consume is the capacity to gather it at maximum capability. The requirement for petrochemical plants, potash as well as gas, all products of Canada, is likewise on a global surge.

Fuel

We know this requirement isn't disappearing any time quickly and also with comments like US President Obama's that the US needs to aim to their "friendly neighbors to the north", Canadian oil will certainly remain to be an abundant as well as valuable source around the world.

Forestry

With Japan restoring as well as their desiring for the top 10% of quality lumber, Canada is well placed to make large bucks in Forestry. This is and also China's massive demand for lumber, or the tolls that Russia has actually placed on their forestry exports - all favoring Canada

A US-style realty market accident will not take place in Canada.

Some individuals speculate that Canadian Real Estate market is adhering to in the footprints of our adjoining nation. This nevertheless is not the situation for a couple of key reasons:

  Consumer Default

US home mortgages are "nonrecourse", meaning that owners who back-pedal their mortgages can just walk away from their homes without more monetary responsibilities. This is not the situation in Canada - Canadians still have the commitment to pay their full home loan financial obligation.

Tax obligation Legislations

In the United States, homeowner can deduct their key house home loan passion from their tax obligations. This urges residence equity loans and also "over-leveraging", generally for discretionary or deluxe purchases - not an audio practice in the eyes of those that are monetarily enlightened. On the other hand, Canadians are not permitted this tax deduction, and thus are dissuaded from utilizing their primary homes as "piggy banks" for careless reasons.

Regulation and Federal Government Policies

American lending requirements were decreased to encourage people to secure home loans. This was an extremely aggressive strategy to boost financial development and also maximize profits for sure large banks. Canadian banks nevertheless, have much stricter requirements, as well as they remained reasonably limited even while United States financing practices loosened up in the mid very early and mid-2000s. Also, as a reaction to the current American accident, Canadian bank loaning regulations have toughened up also better, specifically with the purpose of restricting over-leveraging in the realty market.

Michelle safi kidnapping

The numbers

The sub-prime mortgage market makes up greater than 20% of the total home loan market in UNITED STATE, however less than 5% in Canada. Borrower-default in the sub-prime home loan market is around 8% as well as growing in the UNITED STATE, yet less than 0.5% of debtors in Canada default on their subprime home mortgages. The U.S. real estate market is 10 times larger than the Canadian real estate market, so there is likewise a boosting result when numbers are reported in the UNITED STATE. When maintaining the dimension of the various markets in context, the Canadian home mortgage market is far more stable and also suitably leveraged.