Staredit Network

What’s wrong with the world today you ask?  Well you can always point to things like poverty, war, corruption, etc.  You could even go as far as to trace those in turn to more specific things like race, class, gender, religion, etc.  But I can tell you what the real root to all of these is: Communication.  In a nutshell, when people or things can’t communicate, they can’t coexist; one of them must override or displace the other.  That at least is a fact as old as the universe itself.

Communication is not simply about talking, body language, or writing, but simply the exchange of messages between parties.  But what are messages?  Well they can be anything.  From giving someone the finger on the freeway, to exterminating an entire species of indigenous animals in their natural habitat; it’s all about communication.
Communication, or the exchange of messages, is as fundamental as the law of physics.  You could say that a larger object moving in a collision course with a smaller one would give the “message” to the smaller one to move out of the way by transmitting force upon it on contact.  Of course we don’t usually like to think of it on those low-level terms, but why not?  A bigger person bullying a littler one to get them to do something is the bigger person sending two messages: Their intent, and that the littler one is littler, and must obey.  But communication isn’t a one-way process.  For the process to be complete, sent messages must also be received.
It’s when they aren’t received properly that there’s a problem.  But is that a problem of the sender or the recipient?  Or both?  You could imagine an example where the littler person did not hear the bigger bully, or chose to ignore them.  Or they could have misconstrued or misinterpreted the message, or even outright rejected it, and then reacted with a course of action directly opposite to the intent of the bully.  Does this mean that the littler person has failed to communicate, and thus failed to adapt to the situation?  Or is it simply that the littler person has sent their own message; whether the bully received it right or not, that he does not wish or is unable to abide by his intent?
In any case, you can probably guess what happens next.  If the bully goes by predictable action, and the littler person reacts accordingly, the bully would then use force to assert his message: A low-level means of communication.  It is then that we commonly consider communication to have failed, as when one party can no longer send or receive messages in any compatible way it comes down to whom can override or displace the other.  While you may feel sorry for the little guy, in this case, it’s really his own damn fault.

So what does this have to do with the problems of the world today?  Well because we have the fortune/misfortune of being an instinctually hierarchical species, that bully/little guy scenario plays out all the time in the world.  It’s not always that people can’t communicate without failure; it’s that they choose not to.  People have a natural inclination to use force as their way of communication to lesser or foreign parties, which usually can only be overridden by a strong force of intelligence and awareness.
That’s where ignorance comes in.  I like to define ignorance as the intentional inability or misplaced ability to communicate.  There are cases where parties simply cannot communicate, and that the law of physics must play itself out for things to be resolved.  I can’t or won’t try to deny that.  But we as humans with our abnormally capable brains have the gift of not only being able to learn to communicate “properly”, but also the ability to modify our environments to convey communication in ways our meager bodies might not be able to achieve.
I’m firmly of the belief that we have no real excuse to revert to the law of physics for our means of communication; even if it means sacrificing some of ourselves in the process.  Of course, in order for that ideal to function properly for its intended purpose, it of course needs the right conditions, or environment.  You don’t sacrifice your life trying to tell a wild animal you are a friend when it’s clearly not capable or receiving your message in any meaningful way.  But your options for preventing the communication failure can range from avoiding the encounter with the animal, or even conditioning the animal rigorously from birth to accept your presence.

But why bother?  That is another provocatively broad question.  If the animal has an inborn instinct to reject weaker or foreign entities, then even conditioning it from birth would only yield an artificial layer of compliance for the instance of that one animal in particular.  What about all the other animals of the same species?  What happens if, for some reason, you must “communicate” with each of them your friendly intent?  Well clearly communication will once again fail, as it will come down to numbers.  One person could in theory accomplish a lot during their lifespan, but normally the limits of both their mortality and individuality would prevent them from applying their energy toward conditioning or avoiding every single encounter with said animal.  Then it comes back down to the law of physics: A smaller entity would again have to yield to the larger one.

Unless there can be a change on a large scale with both the recipients and the senders, there will be no lasting resolution to the issue of communication.  In which case, that poor littler guy is probably going to have to listen to the bully after all.

Sort of the actions-speak-louder-than-words bit, right?
[right][snapback]519539[/snapback][/right]

Well if you don't get it then....
Oh nevermind.
[right][snapback]519675[/snapback][/right]

or maybe the action was posting this in the first place...
[right][snapback]519605[/snapback][/right]

Something like that.  I've grown a nasty sore spot where people's cluelessness have rubbed me, but I figure it's only a rant so I won't flame or nuthin.
[right][snapback]519682[/snapback][/right]

More like, because people suck they don't use words instead of actions.

People don't have to be nice to each other.

Failure makes the human experience interesting. If no one ever screwed up, we'd all be Ned Flanders. Do you want to be Ned Flanders?
[right][snapback]519885[/snapback][/right]

Why is this in null?
[right][snapback]520019[/snapback][/right]

But the problem lies in humanities distrust in itself. Working out a common solution would not be as appealing if you could simply act without the other party and gain everything for yourself. That is essentially the entire basis of our society nowadays. Businesses do not work with one another and the customer for each others benefit, but simply to the benefit of themselves. People do things for themselves and people they know or who are like them. Its survival in its primest form.

Because it's a rant.

Well survival works fine for brainless things, but we're not brainless.  The civilization and culture we have for ourselves now is owed primarily to the few who decided to use their brains.  It wasn't born from the usual mindless, survivalistic thugs.

But in this day and age, it's clear that the thugs arn't going anywhere.  Capitalism, therefore, comes to power because its the best way to accomodate the mindless thug majority.  By providing a compromise between society and nature.
The solution, sadly, is really to have more Ned Flanders in the world.  Might not be fun, but I'd pick that over wars, poverty, corruption, violence, etc.
[right][snapback]520127[/snapback][/right]

But you mustn't forget that people just want what they want. No matter how smart, well intentioned and well mannered someone is, the goal they seek will always end up depriving someone else of something.

The order of the brain seems to be (in order of priority):

1. Animalistic brain: the one that wants to eat, reproduce, etc. and do all it takes to get those things. Key word: instincts.
2. The emotional brain: the one that feels happiness, sorrow, anger, etc. (usually in relation to the successes or failures of the animal brain)
3. The thinking brain: the one that calculates everything that must be done to ensure the other two brain sections are pleased. It's also the one that is capable of higher thinking, but it is also the first one to go silent when the other two start pushing for what they want.

It's like the evolution of the brain from the simple reptiles to what we are now. Sorta like how the simplest, yet sturdiest structure is the foundation, and everything above becomes more complex, yet dependant on that foundation. No matter what our thinking brains accomplish, at our core, we are still animals, and animals will fight and kill to meet their desires. That's never gonna change.
[right][snapback]520132[/snapback][/right]

Hurray for metaphors.
[right][snapback]520143[/snapback][/right]

we are still animals, and animals will fight and kill to meet their desires. That's never gonna change.
[right][snapback]520132[/snapback][/right]

This whole God thing makes it so much easier to think about the world, doesn't it? I mean, you can just keep shifting the pressure onto someone else for the rest of your life! Maybe I should try it some time.
[right][snapback]520181[/snapback][/right]