There is nothing new under the sun. All is vanity. But my Apple Watch, Global Climate Change, United Nations Millennium Development Goals, the list goes on. Television was invented in the 1920s and by using two different transmitters and receivers one could have both an audio and video conversation with another person. But the equipment was a little too large to carry about on wrist. The comic strip Dick Tracy, whose creator was Chester Morris, anticipate the smart phone when Morris came up with the two way radio wrist watch and later added a video screen. Unlike Apple, his creation didn’t need a smart phone to make it work. The Apple Watch will not work without the connection to the smart phone. And there have been novels and films where the mad inventor seeks to control the climate and hence the earth using complicated equipment. Seems there is nothing new about climate change, just the manner in which we seek to control it. Finally, the idea of the United Nations was born out of the ashes many of the developed countries to establish a world body that would help to promote peace and prevent conflict and wars. The second world war was seen as so terrible and horrible in the carnage of human flesh and economic infrastructure that many of the world’s leaders sought a way to improve on the old League of Nations Idea and provide the world with a forum to discuss grievances and problems between nations. That has not worked much better than the old League of Nations for the world is still full of war and destruction. Well, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again.
Cultures, of which religion is a part, have often attempted to define the perfect society and organization for governing that society. One of the first philosophers to try his hand at directing human behavior was Plato. Now I know there were others before him but we simply don’t have much in written record to know much about their attempts. The Republic is interesting reading because Plato attempts to formulate the definitions of the desired qualities of the ideal society (at least according to Greek ideals) and the means to implement those ideals and the structure necessary to achieve and continue them. He is, perhaps, the only thinker who really thought about the problem of perfecting a society from both the bottom up and the top down approach. Moore, in Paradise Lost, was more of a top down man as are almost all the modern writers of social engineering tomes. Social Darwinism, Fabian Socialism, Communism in its coat of many colors, and today’s Progressive Socialism in all its many splendid forms still seek a top down approach. Political Science, which has nothing in common with true science and its methods, and the social engineering of Sociology, which has nothing to do with and kind of engineering principles, are all fake sciences. Simply put, one makes it up as one goes along. We love to believe that there are inalienable rights all individuals possess on this earth. We’ve put up monuments and carved them in stone but that hasn’t done much good where collective human behavior is concerned. If there were god given inalienable rights then one might suppose that god would come down and punish those who seek to violate them. No such luck. As Brian said, we are suppose to work it out for ourselves. Seeking signs and leaders only means you are expecting someone else to do your dirty work for you. We want our freedoms and individuality but we crave the comfort of the group and it’s own brand of tyranny. An American slogan the GIs used in WWII was, “Let George do it.” Whoever George happens to be, let him do it, whatever that happens to be. Sort of like fighting the powers that be, whoever they might be, the anonymous “they”, we all hear and read about. Nameless bureaucrats sitting in featureless offices somewhere in the seats of power. As Walt Kelly’s Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and they is us.”
If one goes to Amazon and searches on words like equality, and economic equality, and other such terms of stupidity, one can find any number of books extolling the glory of social equality, economic equality, wealth distribution, and every other magic keyword that supports many of the causes listed above. I believe that Joseph Stiglitz has written the latest word in such idiocy. Never trust an economist, they have never held a real job or gotten their hands dirty working for their daily bread. Jeffery Sacks, the economist who is the official economic advisor to the UN is another of these idiots. hese people always take a top down approach and always believe that the individuals, such as the poor, are no more that standardize units of production. Don’t believe me? Pick up any first year economics textbooks and you will see that all workers are referred to a units of production. Hell, we aren’t even human and they worry about our equality of income while they easily earn six or seven figures a year? Some equality. As George Orwell said in Animal Farm, “Some animals are more equal than others.” The libraries are full of literature showing the stupidity of these attempts at creating paradise and these idiots can’t be bothered to read them. Well, what do you expect when you spend twenty or thirty years believing in the bullshit of your predecessors and your job depends of continuing that belief and making others believe it as well? Try questioning their false assumptions and see how far you get.
So now we have the UN touting its seventeen proposed sustainable development goals. I’ll list them, they are on the UN’s website.
1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
3. Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages
4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all
9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster innovation
10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (taking note of agreements made by the UNFCCC forum)
14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss
16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development
To find out more about the post-2015 process and the open working group on the sustainable development goals visit the Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform.
Now all this sounds so wonderful but do you see the lack of specifics? Do you see the attempt at uniformity? How does one end poverty in all its forms everywhere? How does anyone define poverty? If I choose to live off road on my own little acre of land in a tent and I get my drinking water from a small collection pond and filter the water using simple clarification that our ancestors used, am I living in squalor and poverty? If I grow the food that I need to survive, hunt and trap small game for protein, am I living in poverty? If I don’t have twenty people of every diverse color, nation, and creed living on my land am I being exclusive? Maybe I want the solitude and quiet. How can I be inclusive if what I want is not what those others want? And who the hell are you, Mr UN economist, to tell me I have to live like a unit of production in equal housing eating equal food stuffs according to your dietary standards and accepting your health care regulations while learning only what you deem acceptable for the equal distribution of education? Just who the hell do you think you are? I’ll tell you. An elite, a member of the elite ruling class who will be more equal than the rest of us. In order to achieve all these good intentions everyone must surrender their individual freedoms and rights for the good of the whole.
|But the general idea is that each man should have power according to his knowledge and capacity. […] And the keynote is that of my fairy State: From every man according to his capacity; to every man according to his needs. A democratic Socialism, controlled by majority votes, guided by numbers, can never succeed; a truly aristocratic Socialism, controlled by duty, guided by wisdom, is the next step upwards in civilization.||”|
|—Annie Besant, a Fabian Society member|
Ah yes, controlled by duty and guided by wisdom. Moore thought his paradise would be guided by the holy spirit of god. For Marx, it was that perfect communism state that would be guided by the spirit of communism. Stalin thought otherwise. The UN’s big socialism in the sky. In Germany the National Socialism Party was a continuation of the government social policies enacted by Bismark during that period of 1860 to 1910. Okay, so Hitler wanted to expand German hegemony in the world and ended up starting a world war. So how do you think the UN will force its way on the world? Do you believe that Putin would give up control of Russia to the UN mandates willingly? Do you believe that the Chinese will succumb to this simple debate because it is “for the good of the earth and the world?” Imagine a childhood where you are not allowed to pick your own friends but are assigned friends from every different group or class because you are to be inclusive in your friendships. We don’t choose friends on the basis of inclusiveness but on the basis of common interest and likability. If a child has a rotten personality will he or she be included in many friendships? The problem with all attempts of creating some sort of paradise is that they all aim towards a uniformness of mind and spirit. Everyone knows their place and rarely are they able to rise above their station. Their needs are simple, creativity is kept to a minimum and always for the good of the group. Expressions of independence, individuality, and nonconformity are dealt with in a very harsh manner. Art and music is regulated as is fiction in writing. God, paradise is a very boring place, I think I would rather have a frontal lobotomy if I am to live there. You see, that is the conflict. Cultures cease to grow and change as the needs arise when you surrender growth and change for uniformity and security. We live our lives individually on the edge of a knife where on one side is the group and the other is the individual. That is the dualistic nature of living unless you are an ant or a bee. Of course they are all exact genetic copies of the first worker ant of bee. Put an individual ant into a jar of water and it will fight to survive and live, but only so it can serve the nest and the queen. Survival is not about its own life but that of the queen and the nest. We are different, when we are faced with a test of survival it’s about our life and not that of the group, in most cases. All these people with advanced degrees and good intentions and not one of them knows a damn thing about life. I am amazed that so many people with advanced degrees can be so stupid in life.
I have an advanced degree, so I cannot claim to be completely unaffected by my education. But I am a behaviorist by nature and a cognitive scientist by training. Statistics has taught me that out of all those individual events and occurrences, no matter how you wish to aggregate them, they are still individual events and occurrences. The great sin that most individuals commit when they use statistics is that they never learned that simple lesson. Economist and social sciences people are the worst. True, in physics an electron is an electron is an electron, so the aggregation of them as a group doesn’t really matter (ha, ha, the pun in not intended). But for live organisms it does mater. We can create classifications and thus “group” individuals. But that is just that, we are grouping individuals and not making them units of mass production of factors of labor and other such symbols of uniformity. This is the problem of that top down approach to life, it all looks like uniform units of production. Hence we expect life to act in a uniform manner. Put a hundred black cats into a room and they all look alike and they all act like cats act. But they are not exactly uniform in their looks and their individual actions. So the only thing we can say about those hundred black cats is that there is a hundred of them, they all black, and they all act like cats and not dogs or birds. From the top down you can’t go any deeper than that. But the progressive socialist tries to go deeper without any regard to reality. I fear for the future.