knell wrote:a
the problem with your advice of "googling to do your own research", is that it will lead people into the corners of the internet that they already agree with, and then those sites will confirm those beliefs.
Yeah i remember seeing something on Ted about that. Has a specific name i think, but i can't place it. I guess it's all down to the individual's techniques and determination. I try and hit up a variety of places for my findings, both online and more specialist people i know. if you seek it, you find it. if you don't find it, you find something else just as relevant or more relevant to your current situation/question.
As for the survival stuff,
I think we're out growing survivalist modes of thought both on an individual and collective level. Essentially, we're clever enough to survive and not threaten our own species and planet as much as we do. It wouldn't be so difficult if every single industry hadn't become so monopolized.
When we look at how advanced we ourselves have become, and where we should really be now in terms of civilization and technological advancements, we can see that something is stunting our growth, either directly or indirectly. I think it's a combination of both.
Technology reaches it's singularity and inventively go's omni-directional. (didn't say dimensional but i could of
) We're at that point now, the more technology advances, the more we
really should be. We should be moving beyond our shoot-em-up themed survival now. We know full well how to survive and co-exist, we just kind of choose not to, or we choose surviving at the polarized expenses of somewhere else's decay and demise. even if we don't make those choices, our inaction
is our consent.
Ideally i think a Technocracy would be the one (a form of government in which science would be in control of all decision making, not a fat tekno rig based society, although both could be cool
) of course this would need to be transparent, which the current £$£$cience paradigm would resist if it was left regulated by them.
And noam as for the 90% comment, i know what you mean but i think people underestimate themselves as far as power in numbers gos. Hence why no one gets involved in the first place.
if you need 51% for a decision to go one way , then even those who aren't directly responsible for the idea still have a part to play if they're helping bringing it out. Same for activism etc sometimes a good idea just needs enough heads behind it which is where we all come in to play. 1 idea from 1 mind heard by millions of people. each person plays an equal part.
when enough people are on the same page at the same time, that's when the collective power to write the next page is self-granted to us.
I see too many percentages flying around all the time. (of course you need them to collect data and act upon but; ) The sooner we look at the entire World and it's entire content as a continual 100%, the sooner we start to address everything and avoid the polarized and dual bias we have.
The more we categorize and subvert, the further away from the core of the problems we go. the further away we go, the more distant we become...which 'luckily' leads people to act in the way they do today, as we try and recreate what ever it is we feel we're not only loosing out on, but what we feel we deserve.
rambling morning thoughts anyway will stop there haha.
you made me sad noam. I don't wanna grow up.
