Ian wrote: “i’m actually responding to that thing you wrote in march about how you wanted to be a guy that makes propaganda. admitedly this would be cool, but i really don’t feel it would satisfy your hunger for power. there wouldn’t be any face to face gratification. The guys that make the propaganda aren’t the ones that decide what it says. you’ve probably already thought about this, but incase you haven’t, do.

“it seems much more like the kind of job that someone like mr. peabody would like. puzzle after puzzle after puzzle. big ones. important ones. those are the people that make the propaganda not the power hungry ones. the power hungry ones don’t really have any power. they just think they do. thats why their in a political office, so they can’t screw anything up. it’s like a cage for them. keep um there until they die or the species falls into anarchy.”

I’m currently wondering what can ever satisfy my desire for power, short of world domination. Another question arises from this: Who really holds power? Looks like another blog topic. (Sometime this week, perhaps.)

Nice essay, Ian. I didn’t know that was one of the topics for spin-mastah-nelli’s class, but you were in a different period. Any type of punishment for crimes can’t really serve as a deterrent because criminals, for the most part, don’t believe they’re going to get caught. The best deterrent would be for criminals to be sure that they couldn’t get away with crimes. I’ve never completely made up my mind about capital punishment, but I look at it as a punishment, not a deterent. So, crimes, deterrents, capital punishment, more topics, for other days.

Yes, Lloyd, I probably could get more robot to follow a red line, it’s just that my sheet comes with a big black line, not a big red line. The light percentage values for the light sensor would be more ambiguous, but I think it would work.

Diana said: “now in my opinion the strongest are the ones who have the power BUT HURT SELECTIVELY those who deserve that pain…( comparison with God)….could be not sure… anybody can be evil…but its much harder to stay good……..and well the ones who have the power supposed to pick things that are much harder to do…… kind of complicated but i hope u got the point….”

Hurting selectively doesn’t seem to be a different choice. It’s not like you’re forced to hurt people. You still choose. Choosing to hurt selectively just seems like a rationalization. Eventually, you’ll rationalize hurting others who you otherwise would have thought “undeserving” of the pain.

I didn’t answer all the comments, but some didn’t need answering.

Note: Will answer unanswered comments tomorrow.

“Don’t talk to strangers.” How many countless times have we heard that admonition? I wonder if it was really such a good idea to saturate kids’ minds with that idea. During my SAT II examinations, there were a bunch of students all standing or sitting in line. Unless they knew each other, they weren’t talking. That meant that there were long stretches of kids, all equally bored, just standing there into empty space. What could be more fun? Why, perhaps talking.

Maybe it’s just California, but I’m noticing a total dearth of interaction between people who don’t know each other very well. Any interaction is strictly business. “Excuse me,” etc.

I don’t like this direction. People point out how the concept of the neighborhood is dying; I think this is worse. We’ll completely shut ourselves off from everyone we don’t work with, or need to know. Sure, you can still meet some people, but life is more dull this way.

We could suggest the exact opposite: Don’t not talk to strangers. (Emphasis on the double-negative.) Maybe this will make those strangers less lonely. Maybe they won’t feel so angry and obligated to exact vengeance on anyone within reach. If more people know the “stranger,” that makes it more likely to catch that person if s/he ever does anything wrong.

If people are more friendly to each other, perhaps it will help stop gangs. They won’t have to shelter themselves with other deadly people.

It could bring back the concept of a neighborhood where everyone watches out for each other.

It can make people more open. As they interact with more people, they will learn new things. They will come to see different viewpoints. They can accept more diversity.

More importantly, we can stand in line and not be completely bored. We can wait in an office and not try to ignore everyone around us.

Being more friendly reciprocates. Encouraged to talk, almost everyone should become more friendly. It’ll simply make everyone happier. We won’t have to worry about being in a cold, harsh, unwanting environment because we can simply make a friend of who we’re with.

The moral: “Talk to strangers.”

[11/08/03 – EDIT: I have replied to the comment for this entry.]

The Broken Window Fallacy is very insightful when dealing with economics. I don’t want to rephrase something I just gave a link to, so just click it, then hit the back button. It’s okay, I’ll still be here.

Alright, done reading? I hope you read it, or already know what it is, or else you might get a bit confused.

My contention is that the Broken Window Fallacy applies not only to economics, but to emotion and ethical issues also. For example, people say that Sept. 11 brought everyone closer together, so it actually caused some good. But was that good merely diverted from elsewhere? There is no doubt in my mind as to the heroism of those firefighters on that day, but how many more lives could’ve been saved by those who had died on that day? They saved lives, but those were lives that shouldn’t have been in danger in the first place.

Those families were consoled by others, but what of the family members’ love that they’ve been deprived of? What I’m saying is that energy for emotions has been diverted from somewhere else, not created. We’re not looking at the hidden costs.

Another point I’m trying to make is that some people claim that even the bad people have actually caused some good. Worse crimes have led to better law enforcement. We wouldn’t need all that law enforcement if the crimes weren’t committed in the first place. It diverted good that could have been brought elsewhere. I could go on…

I’m not entirely sure if my thinking is right because emotions and ethics aren’t concrete, like money is. Moreover, I don’t think I’ve eloquently explained myself enough to convince anyone. However, it is something to chew on until I think about it some more and then write again.

Some days ago, Lloyd, via a listlog, tells me that my immortality blog reminds him of an entry, a consistently subversive thought, he did a while back.

It’s an interesting idea to think that you could live on after you die, or at least a facsimile of yourself. I’ve seen the idea explored in numerous novels, most recently I’ve read it in Steven Baxter’s Manifold trilogy. In the first book, Reid Malenfant, the main character, is brought back in the future, but it’s not really him. He’s a computer program. Of course, he feels like himself.

As exciting as the prospect is, it still doesn’t grant you true immortality. Eventually, the programs will die with the universe, along with everything else. There’s no way around it.

Lloyd mentions using a weblog to create a facsimile of that person. Although a weblog can reveal a lot, I don’t think it can reveal enough. I don’t think anything can be enough to map something as complex as the human mind expect by direct monitoring. Or perhaps an AI can take input from a weblog to help create its personality. Still, AI technology is far off. But who knows, maybe 20 years from now, I’ll be completely proven wrong. We’ll see then, won’t we.

As for me, I’m just going to live and forget about impossible dreams of immortality. If I have no hopes for immortality, I’ll be more likely to live my one life to the fullest.

This is actually a semi-reply to an entry written by Josh. The main jumping point I’m using is this statement, “I have my friends, who stay with me after death, and carry my memory after I die.  I am immortal, and I grant them immortality.” Brace yourselves, this oughta be really cynical…

Do your friends really give you immortality? How many of you know your great great grandparents names, let alone the names of their friends? For those who do know, it’s most likely that one of these two cases apply to them: 1) they do a lot of genealogy, or 2) one of their great great grandparents was famous.

Interesting thing about fame: people remember it. I can name generals who fought in the civil war, but I can’t name my relatives who were living at that time. Some of those people looking to secure fame, or infamy, even, have made their place in history. They live on. They have the kids doing reports on them. All that’s left of some of your relatives is their genetic contributions.

Now that we live in a digital age, you can whip out pictures and videos. But once all the people who were personally there are gone, who’s going to remember the context of a picture? Who’s going to remember that time Bill shot milk out his nose? Etcetera. Memories die quickly. The things that stick out are what we deem historically important.

Ah, but I completely skipped over video. Video can provide a way for context to live on. Memories, voice, and more can live on. Yet, what’s more entertaining? Old home movies, or war/historical documentaries? Okay, maybe some of you will pick the former, but many will honestly pick the latter. Over time, though, the old home movies lose relevance. Memories begin to die.

Eventually, your friends die, and memories of you die with them. It’s a sad truth. Those who touch more, through so-called historically important events, will be the ones remembered. And it doesn’t matter whether they were “good” or “bad.”

There is one thing I missed that can preserve memories best, and it’s been around the longest: writing. Diaries and the like are excellent primary sources that provide a sense of how it was like to live during a certain period in history, or even a more recent period of time. Think of how much the diary of Anne Frank (spelling, name?) sold. Even now, I’m doing this with this weblog. Look at the new culture building up around these. Writing can highlight important moments and make things less dull than a home movie. Most people’s naturally semi-voyeuristic nature will make them interested in this sort of thing.

Yet, there’s so much writing that much of it is lost and dies. Again, the memories die. How many autobiographies of ordinary people are kids writing reports on? Also, the memories seem only to be useful to gauge a certain period of time, or different events taking place, and it’s not really about the person.

So in the end, it seems only the famous get their “immortality.” Fear not: Eventually, they die too. Smaller celebrities are lost quickly. Even kings are forgotten. Time kills all. Even the most important will eventually die when the universe itself dies. There is no such thing as true immortality.

Little kids are not the cutest things in the universe. They are gross little creatures that drip from every orifice. It’s true. Clingy beasts that you can never take your eyes off, or they’ll go do something you’ll regret. Sapping every single moment of attention and energy. Horrible little buggers.

I’m utilizing hyperbole, but kids are very demanding, especially when they can’t fully talk. How do people get anything done when they are around? Maybe when I’m older, I’ll change my opinion, but as of now, I’m never going to have kids.

The true reason people want kids is to propagate their genes. It’s what humans are programmed to do. People want a little piece of immortality — a part of them living on. Society seems to have brainwashed us that family is the greatest thing and that should be one’s goal in life. Movies, songs, and other media all do this. This is an intro to a bunch of topic that I can discuss (with myself)… the messages movies try to convey, the messages songs try to convey, “immortality,” and the reason why people encourage others to propagate different genes. Let’s see how much on-topic I can stay as the week progresses.

The site’s small redesign is finished.

This was coming sooner or later… the entry on hypocrisy.

I’ve called hypocrisy the ultimate form of stupidity. (At least, I think I did.) Is it really? Actually, there are two different types of hypocrisy. One type arises from ignorance and the other is intentional.

People are good at ignoring themselves. They never take a step back and observe themselves. Thus, they can have blatant faults which they never realize. So, hypocrisy comes in when they say they oppose something, but are actually doing the very thing they oppose. An example would be a chronic liar who says that s/he hates people who are always lying. Hm, maybe I should take a look at myself before going around criticizing hypocrites.

Why would someone be intentionally hypocritical? For personal gain. Society encourages people to be honest, so that it’s easier to live together. Now, a person can lie and cheat the system, ending up on top (case in point, certain politicians). However, if everyone were to lie, it wouldn’t work. Everyone would be suspicious of each other and one wouldn’t gain too much from lying. So, I could tell people not to lie, when I’m lying myself, so I can gain from lying, but I don’t have to worry about others lying to me. Another example would be between two siblings and one computer. Sibling A could tell Sibling B that Sibling B uses the computer too much. Sibling A does this to discourage Sibling B from using the computer. This allows Sibling A to use up that free time that Sibling B used to take up. (No, this isn’t me disguising names. I have too many computers, and all of them are networked, in my house to fight over one.)

I’d say the second type is not stupidity, but intelligence — a pragmatic intelligence with no moral considerations. Hypocrisy, of the first sort, seems to be only one type of stupidity that arises from human nature. It’s not the “ultimate form of stupidity.” The definition of hypocrisy would make it seem so, but it’s only a form of “lack of information.” I’d say, there is no ultimate form of stupidity.

Throughout my life, I’ve contemplated what I would do with power: good or evil. Would I make everyone prosper, or suffer? From a strictly moral viewpoint, it would seem that good would be the obvious choice. Some think that the difficultly arises only once one has power and can no longer resist evil intentions..

The reason power tends to lead to greater evil is that with greater power comes less punishment. There’s less of a chance of retribution. Morality is based on justice. If there’s no chance of justice being brought to you, then you simply won’t care.

But, still, what would be the reason to commit evil? Just because you can? That doesn’t seem like good enough of an answer. Perhaps it arises from the need for more power. One way to “gain” power is to make it so everyone else has less power. The more people suffering then, the more power it seems like you have. This is only reinforced by what is mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Some could argue that you would get more power by having everyone prosper. As others prosper, the actions reciprocate. Which country had more money, the US, or the USSR?

In a very finite amount of time (life is a finite amount of time), I think both can produce the same results in the mind. It comes to a preference within the person before attaining power. Which goal do they want beforehand? They’ll go for the choice which will make it seem as if they are getting more power.

Which one would I choose? Evil. I feel as if more power lies in the so-called evil path. With good, you’re still a slave to everyone. With evil, they’re a slave to you. If I ever get a great deal of power, I’ll probably abuse it. But by then, you’ll have forgotten about this little weblog entry. Maybe you’ll wish you had remembered.

I wonder if anyone else would openly admit that they’d choose the “evil” path. I think this makes me worse than most people. It’s said that even the most evil people think that they’re doing good, from their point of view. I, on the other hand, have openly chosen a path that I know would only benefit me.

Or am I better, because I’m one of the few truly being honest with myself?

People walk in step with each other. It’s funny. When I think about it, it makes sense logically. How else are people supposed to keep talking with each other when walking? Despite having different heights, people keep this up. Just scan people next time you’re looking out into space and see it with your own eyes.

Whenever obstacles are encountered, or the route is curved, then the in step motion is discontinued. My next goal is to see if people who aren’t talking to each other walk in step. Then, I must see if people further apart still walk in step.

Very small children are an exception. They sort of walk in step, but their little legs cause them to gradually fall behind. As a result, every so often they did this quick little run. It’s hard to explain, but you’ll know it when you see it.

The reason this is funny is because people naturally walk in step with each other, but when we have to march (as in marching band) it takes us forever to be able to do this. As to how it relates to agnoiology… it’s because many of us have failed to notice such a simple observation.

Remember when I posted about school vs. video games? Here’s Quad’s perspective on the issue. (Quad was one of my teachers at ATDP last year.) I thought it was interesting how we came up with similar points independently.

My AIM chatroom experiment has led me to an astonishing conclusion: a large amount of people do not go online to talk.

Even I think to myself, “Come again?”

When people go into chatrooms they feel obligated to talk. This point is obvious when I remember that one person pointed out that the purpose of a chatroom is to chat. When no one chats, the room “dies” and everyone will leave. This exacerbates the obligation to talk.

Sometimes, people refuse to enter a chatroom, giving all sorts of excuses. The reason they don’t want to go in is so they are not obligated to chat. Why would they not want to feel obligated to chat if they were on a chatting service? Perhaps because they are not online to talk.

Odd, but true. There is some logic to it, however. People go online and yet, they don’t say anything. Why, they could just go browse about and not sign on instant messenger, right? Why would they want to go through the extra hassle? If they don’t sign on, they’re alone. Humans beings are social species. We don’t want to think we’re alone. We get, well, lonely. This way, people can fool themselves into thinking that even though they’re on a computer by themselves, they are still sociable!

Some people fill up their buddy list to the full capacity of 200. How many of these people are they really talking to? Hm?

People specifically sign on instant messengers because they don’t want to feel alone. Now, that I’ve come to the conclusion from my experiment, I can see other signs. Why do people leave their away message on when they go to sleep? It’s because they don’t want to disconnect from the community. Even when they aren’t actually there, they are! They can not be there, and still be sociable. Wow!

People sign on for hours at a time. I doubt they’re talking nonstop throughout that time. With AIM, or something analogous, running in the background, they don’t feel lonely.

Most people go to movies with friends. Many of these people hardly say a word throughout the movie. With instant messenger the same concept applies. They feel alone, even though logically, it makes no sense.

To verify my ideas, I would have to conduct more experiments. The last experiment also included throwing together people who didn’t know each other. In the next experiment, I will avoid that, because it makes some people uncomfortable. It will be chatting in small groups. If they still refuse, it will help contribute to the information that supports my hypothesis.

Of course, all my conclusions could be for naught, if people are actually talking to other people, just not to me…. Suddenly, I feel… alone.

I read Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot and it got me thinking about the perfect society again. What if there were robots looking out for our best interests? It would seem that over time, society would be perfect, if there were no way for humans to thwart the robots.

A perfect society, by my definition, must keep people perpetually happy. That means forever. If the society ends, it cannot be perfect. In the end times, people would not be happy. Since the materials the universe is made of are not eternal (eventually protons will decay), the society within the universe cannot be eternal.

Any model people make of a perfect society will eventually succumb to time. Eventually, the people can no longer survive. Eventually, the society will die. It will not be perfect.

Some models of a perfect society don’t take into account putting a cap on population. These are not true perfect societies because the unchecked growth of the population will eventually outpace the supply of resources. A greater number of people fighting for the same resources creates competition. The weak will lose. The weak will be unhappy. This is not a perfect society anymore.

My original statement still stands. It’s still impossible to create a perfect society. A perfect society, by its definition, makes itself impossible.

Why are some people depressed so often? (I don’t mean clinical depression.) I think there’s one reason why people show emotions of sorrow… they want others to notice. If they didn’t want others to know, they’d act as they normally do.

Being depressed would be an example of something not beneficial, until one adds in the others who notice. Showing sadness allows others to notice, so they can comfort the sad person. That’s the real reason, at least on a subconscious level. Even if they say they don’t want others to know, they actually do. The friend that probes despite this shows greater loyalty, making the depressed person happier.

This is a cynical view, but it makes sense. Showing sadness would seem a weakness, simply making them easier prey, and dropping their status on the social ladder. However, since humans are social, those who have their solace comforted are better off, making the physical displays a benefit.

I’m trying out something new with AOL Instant Messenger. I’m talking almost exclusively in a chatroom, instead of one on one IMing sessions. I have quite a few people on my list (but I occasionally clean it out to keep it from going over 100) and many of these people I’ve met from different places. Many of these people don’t know each other. Figuring out who the others are is half the fun, as I found out last night.

I’m doing this because I haven’t been too talkative lately — and by lately I mean a whole bunch of months — and this seems to be a better way to get conversation started. Having more people builds to the conversation. It gives me more ideas, and I don’t have to come up with ideas to start conversation. Multiple people also add to the randomness quotient of conversation. Jumping from topic to topic is quicker, and the whole conversation is more fast-paced. Usually when I talk, there are huge gaps.

The multiple people thing making people more talkative can also be seen when speaking in real life. It’s synergetic; separately, they don’t have as much to say, but together, they build off each other.

So, I’m going to continue this and see how it goes. My screen name is “schizo killer” and “get out of my chatroom” is the name of the chatroom.

There’s a big problem with philosophy — a lack of testing. None of what I say can be really experimentally verified. Certain things about humanity and anthropology can be tested, but human nature cannot really be known. When experimenting, there’s supposed to be a control, and only one variable tested at a time. We have nothing like this going on. It’s hard to tell which factors affect what.

The only thing I can do is observe, and read history. History is the key. It seems like people do have a nature that is common between them for history repeats themself. History can provide answers to questions of the nature of human beings. It also provides great examples of stupidity. Check out the Maginot Line sometime.

Observation is also good, but there’s only so far I can go, without setting up experiments. Even then, results are often murky. I’ll just observe others, and myself, as things go along, and interpret them to see if I have to change my worldview.

Since there are no true experiments, we can’t tell what’s the best form of government. We can’t test without it being unethical. If there were large-scale human tests, we would have much more insight into the nature of human beings and how they socially interact. For now, again, we must rely on history to provide examples of things such as types of government. We know from history that Communism didn’t work so well, nor fascism.

Thus, if I want to show I’m right about humans, I must provide examples from the observation of others from the past and present.

Defined, a perfect society is one in which every person is perpetually and fully happy. Of course, a perfect society is impossible because humans are inherently not perfect. Because they are not perfect, it is impossible for them to be perpetually or fully happy. They can’t create something perfect because anything they make will have flaws. In addition, no two individuals are exactly the same. They have different needs. It’s impossible to please everyone at the same time.

Then, we should strive to have the greatest amount of people for the most amount of people. Yet, that would indicate that there is a set number. How fair is this to the people who are not happy if we stick to that? There’s another point:

Humans are constantly changing. What pleases them one instant, might not please them the next. Humans get bored easily and need variety. Yet, humans also resist change. It makes them unconfortable because they have to adjust from something familiar. Since they are unhappy either way, they can never be fully happy.

It seems futile that we strive towards this impossible goal always. We want it “better for the next generation” and we keep wanting it to become better until it is perfect. Perfect is impossible. Yet, some people acknowledge this but still try. They’re trying to reach optimum. But then wouldn’t the optimum be perfect in a sense, making that impossible? People change, so optimums can change. We can never reach equilibrium unless we permanently stop changing and deny the essential human nature to be curious and explore.

I guess we’ll keep on trying, until we’re extinct.

Humans only do things they think is beneficial to them. Sometimes, this can be wrong due to lack of information, misinformation, or misinterpretation of information. Stupidity occurs when one of these takes place.

Stupidity arises because humans are not perfect. They make mistakes. One of those actions will occur, and a stupid action will take place. So, stupidity is an inherent part of human nature because humans are not perfect.

There are different degrees of stupidity. For me, stupidity is more of when it should be obvious as to what the choice should be, yet mistakes occur. Stupidity also arises from miscalculated risk — a type of misinterpretation of information. Taking unnecessary risks will unnecessarily increase the probability of harm.

Stupidity not due to lack of information will become more rampant of a problem as time goes on. Humans are stopping evolution and so the genes of those with not as much brain capacity are allowed to propagate. The human interference with evolution will be discussed at length sometime this week or next week.

Earlier, I gave the definition of stupid as that which goes against logic and reason. In light of what I’ve been saying that humans only do that which is beneficial to them, I’m redefining stupidity for agnoiology. Stupidity consists of choices and conditions that do harm. However, everyone calculates harm vs. benefit differently, especially when different amounts of risks are factored in. I’m going with what I think is stupid and what causes the most amount of happiness in the most amount of people.

The definition isn’t quite a redefinition because I consider that which is illogical to be harmful. It’s almost the same, but I’m putting it in terms that better fit my philosophical stance. It’s good that I have this weblog, so I can put up ideas and change them before posting them on a site. Agnoiology.com won’t be up until at least late April, or more likely, not until June.

I am home sick today. I woke up with a hacking cough. Luckily, it was timed such that I didn’t have to go to school today. I feel fine now — ah, the wonders of today’s medicinal technologies. Unfortunately, I have a band dress rehearsal after school today. Knowing my band teacher, I don’t think missing it would be beneficial to my grade, even with my being absent today. Now, on to today’s topic:

All actions of humans are inherently selfish. Let’s go through indirect reasoning to try to prove my example: Assume that all actions of humans are not inherently selfish. Then, humans would perform actions that are not beneficial to them. It would seem almost all actions that don’t provide benefit would provide harm. If humans harmed themselves, natural selection would act against that and weed out those who harm themselves. Even if actions don’t seem to cause harm, they expend energy. If there is too much energy expended in a wasteful manner, and harm will be caused.

Actions that seem altruistic are really selfish on a subconscious level. Giving promotes reciprocality. I lend you a piece of paper, you’ll lend me one. I give you help, you’ll help me when I need it. Giving also promotes one in social status. Look at what that person gave, he’s a good person. I’m going to go associate with him. Even those who give in private… I’m giving in private, this is what my God wants me to do; I’m going to heaven. Or, I’m giving, I’m getting a good feeling inside. Now, I have the ability to compete because I can call the others hypocrites.

There is one type of action that seems to contradict my ideas: self-sacrifice. By sacrifice, I mean death. Now, this doesn’t seem to produce any evolutionary good. By killing yourself, you wipe out your genes from the gene pool. Protecting children, however, propagates your genes. It’s better to protect their genetic viability than oneself’s genetic viability which is more spent. In the end, it comes down to this, the basic unit of evolution is a population, not an individual. Though it’s not the exact genes of the individual, the genes for those similar are still being passed on.

What about sacrificing for ideals? Well, the person who’s sacrificing wants the ideal to propagate. It also elevates the social status very high. Relatives can benefit from the status.

This supports my idea that there is no absolute moral good and evil. Good is what, in the bottom line, helps you and evil is that which harms you. Evil is what harms the society you live in. Harmed societies are less stable and less safe to live in. Less safety decreases your chance of living. So, in the end good still boils down to what is beneficial to you, even when it seems to be on a societal level.

Good and evil are not physically tangible. There is no good and evil. They are constructs of the human mind. We made them up. There is nothing that dictates what is right or wrong. Believing in a god could be one way people make the idea of good and evil have real meaning to them.

There’s no way to prove there’s good and evil, so there is no absolute value of good and evil. They’re made up by societies to keep people in line. The idea of good and evil is there to make people get along with each other more easily. What’s right and wrong are really what can make the most people happy in a group. It’s utilatarian by nature.

Good and evil change for societies. Some view some things as evil when others don’t. Ideas also change between people. There’s no way to prove one view point is right unless you define it as before.

I’ll add something else to the definition: what causes the greatest amount of happiness in the most people. Since the suffering of a few causes discomfort in many, it actually isn’t utilatarian to do something such as genocide.

However, what if something, like killing one innocent person to prevent the deaths of others, was wiped from history, and no one knew about it… would it then be utilitarian? Would it be good or evil? Those who believe in a god can feel confident that it is evil. I say, it may in the long run. If no person knows about it, then people are happy. It is good.

Tomorrow, I’ll connect this to the fact that everything a person does is for selfish reasons.

When I grow up (as the phrase goes), I want to be a propagandist. I can come with all sorts of good and funny reasons, but they’d all be covering up my true intentions. I am power hungry and it’s an alternate way to gain power. I want power over the minds of the impressionable sheople (sheep/people). It all boils down to that point. Propaganda is also an effective form of persuasion. I can get all sorts of people to see things my way. It speaks to the masses.

Can anyone think of anything that noble about propaganda? It’s just a cheap, dirty, quick way to win someone over to an idea. Don’t give them all the facts, just the important ones.

I once did a project for history last year, in which I had to write propaganda for WWI. That was a very fun project. I wrote a speech. If I can find it, I’ll post it some other day. Any other line of work seems boring, or fun, but won’t get me anywhere. Propaganda is both fun and appeals to my need for power.

I bet if I was a propagandist for the USA, we’d already be done with the war with Iraq. That’s how effective I could be, if I really put my mind to it. More about the war on Iraq tomorrow.

I already have an idea for a campaign to fight obesity in this nation; it’s called, “Get off your fat lazy asses.” Sure, the initial shock would wear off quickly, but it doesn’t matter. The American public has a short attention span, so I should cater to it, rather than fight it. I think that’s the problem with propaganda nowadays.

I am cynical, but the only difference between you and me is that you think this on a sub-conscious level, and I think it on a conscious level. The inherent selfish nature of humans will be discussed at length later this week.

Two subjects for today. Wow! I’m really getting into this weblog thing.

Fries

Freedom fries — I had to point out this particular piece of stupidity. I don’t think the concept itself is really stupid; I found it rather amusing at first. Yet, isn’t Congress supposed to be some important part of the American government? It would be better to do something constructive and leave the humor to more appropriate venues.

Do As Nature Intends

I go to a catholic school, despite being an atheist myself. Religion classes are required. Right now, I’m taking Moral Theology, and we’ve got this book, Growing in Christian Morality, which says that doing as nature intends, or natural law, is one of many basic moral principles so widely held that it could be considered universal. I disagree with this wholeheartedly. The principle is completely ambiguous. Granted, other moral principles have some ambiguity, but not to the extent of this principle.

What is considered natural? Are elements that only occur when man-made considered natural? After all, humans are a product of nature, so it can be said that anything a human does can be considered natural.

Genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, naturally occur. Is it natural to let this gene propagate and affect others? Or, is it natural to restrict the freedom of this person?

To me, the definition of nature seems to be what is the norm. The problem is that humanity has no idea what this is. In experiments, one must have a control and test variables against it. We don’t have a control. Then again, one could say that everything a human thinks is natural simply because it is a product of nature.

Recapitulating, I’ve just specified only a little bit on the ambiguities of the so-called “natural law” of philosophy. It doesn’t make sense, so I don’t believe one can follow it.