Cav's Place

It has existed ever since 1980, but I only heard about this monument last year, when it was mentioned in passing in a piece about a conspiracy theory I happened to stumble into. Interestingly, the theory as a whole had merit, certainly being one of the most plausible ones I know of, but the Guidestones were obviously only mentioned for the very first line of text, which was seen as a terrible thing. Since I think that is, in fact, a very good idea, I disregarded the entire piece regarding the issue itself, though certainly not the rest of the theory or the warning that population reduction is in fact very likely to be done by actually killing people.
But this post should be strictly about the Guidestones, and more exactly about the engraved guidelines and my opinion of them. Just to get this out of the way from the beginning, I think that overall they’re some excellent new ten commandments, if I may use the term. Really couldn’t care less about who the author is or what “hidden agenda” various conspiracy theorists claim may be behind it. I’m looking at what’s quite literally set in stone and can only say that, with a few additions and after the necessary clarifications have been made, these are indeed rules that humanity as a whole could and likely should live by.
That said, let’s move on. I’ll simply list the ten guidelines, in order, followed by some brief comments I have for each. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t copy the exact punctuation as well, not to mention the alignment, but I just don’t care to. Anyone who is carefully looking into those is likely one of the above-mentioned conspiracy theorists anyway.

1. Maintain humanity under 500000000, in perpetual balance with nature.
The second part of this guideline should be common sense, so there’s nothing to comment regarding it. The first, on the other hand, is what infuriates so many people, because the thought of reducing population by any amount tends to have that effect, so such a drastic suggestion is certain to generate very angry reactions. However, I’m one of those who firmly pushes for a drastic reduction of the human population, so can only express my support for such goals.
Admittedly, 500 million is a relatively low value, but it can be justified by certain studies and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with such a target. In fact, there couldn’t be anything wrong even if it said 100 million, as that’s the lowest value that any serious and recent study regarding the maximum carrying capacity of the planet has turned up. The highest is around three billion, so I personally chose to be lenient about it and go with that as the maximum value I’d accept by the end of the century, though I’d be aiming for two and a half billion and hoping for two billion or less. Then again, there’s hardly anyone who considers that to be lenient, but it really is…
Obviously, the question is how will we achieve such a target. There’s no doubt that the easiest and most reliable method is slaughtering people en masse, whether openly or not. Which means that, if we want to avoid that scenario, we must very quickly adopt the other method, which is to limit the number of births to extremely low values in order for the population to naturally drop in time, even if the average life expectancy will continue to increase.

2. Guide reproduction wisely, improving fitness and diversity.
This connects perfectly with the above and is absolutely necessary, and the part about also improving diversity should be proof enough that the goal is not some sort of ethnic cleansing or any other such atrocity. If we need to drastically limit and regulate births, and we obviously do, then it only follows that we also need to determine which people are most fit to pass on their genes in order to actually improve the human race. Not that it’d be easy to do so, far from it, but it could be done if we’d put our minds to it, using purely objective criteria to both eliminate defects, starting with predisposition to disease, and encourage and improve useful qualities.

3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
That all humans need to know one language in order to be able to communicate with each other is perfectly obvious. What I’m not sure about is the “new” part. I think English would be a very fitting candidate, being a very efficient language and also, most importantly, the one most people in the world already know or are learning as a second language. What’s more, thanks to its simple alphabet, with a pretty low number of letters and no confusing diacritics, English also seems to be best suited to be a written language, and writing is already much more important for communication than speech in most parts of the world and will only become even more so as time passes. So I believe that discarding it and trying to create a new language would at the very least be pointless, likely adding unnecessary difficulties.
Should note that having one language that everyone would need to know well doesn’t have to imply that all other languages would vanish, as they could still be used at the national and local levels. They’d just become secondary languages, with the primary one being the one everyone knows. However, this language that everyone would be required to know would need to evolve in such a way as to include the concepts that may exist in other languages but initially not in it as well, ensuring that nothing meaningful would be lost by replacing all other languages with it in regular speech.

4. Rule passion, faith, tradition and all things with tempered reason.
This is just common sense, or would be if common sense would actually be common. Can’t really make any comments on it, because it is just as it should be.

5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Again, common sense. Who wouldn’t want this? Or, well, I can think of some people who wouldn’t want it, namely the few who take advantage of the many thanks to unjust and corrupt systems, but they’re the ones we need to get rid of.

6. Let all nations rule internally, resolving external disputes in a world court.
A good idea, but it requires clarification. We need to determine what the individual countries can’t do before we offer them such freedom. They shouldn’t be able to have rules that allow the environment to be harmed, for example, nor should they be able to force their rules and regulations upon those who are yet to actually choose to live there, namely the children and those who lack the mental capacity to make such a choice. For pretty much anything else, absolutely, countries should rule internally, with little to no influence from any international bodies, but these issues must be settled first.
Such a concept would work very well in my ideal world order, which actually includes it. But it also includes a world government which would have full powers in certain areas. It would ensure that the environment is properly cared for, that children are properly raised and also being given the necessary information about all their options in order to make informed choices as they get older, and that people are free to move to any country they feel has laws closer to their own views. It would obviously also mediate disputes between countries, regulate and largely control the world’s military and also handle the issue of space exploration and the potential contact with other civilizations. Otherwise, in all matters that are likely to only affect those who have freely chosen to be its citizens, it would allow each country to make its own decisions, no matter how strange or perhaps even harmful they would appear for the rest.

7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Yet another one that I can’t find anything to say about. This is just how it should be, though of course the notions of “petty law” and “useless official” would need to be defined in some way.

8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
My exact opinion about this would vary depending on the exact definition of “balance”. If it’s only meant in the sense that one person’s freedom to swing their fist stops at the other person’s nose, it’s common sense. If it means generally caring for one another, trying not to cause unjustified harm and doing your best to make up for the unjustified harm caused by accident, it’s once again common sense. If, however, it refers to a stricter sense of “duty” towards society, I’d start being bothered. But overall it sounds good, particularly if we’d be talking about a society based upon these guidelines.

9. Prize truth, beauty, love, seeking harmony with the infinite.
The first part of this is once again just how it should be, particularly when it comes to truth and love. Beauty is largely in the eye of the beholder and, in my opinion, shouldn’t exactly be a goal in itself, not to mention that prizing beauty can easily become shallowness. But in this context it works well enough, so the first part is fine as it is. The last is weird, however. It’s rather strange to include this reference to an undefined “infinite” in what is otherwise a very rational and pretty clearly defined piece of text that lacks any other such references. It may mean the bonds that connect us all or a higher force beyond the understanding of most religions, which would again make it pretty much common sense, but I’d really like some clearer definitions.

10. Be not a cancer on the Earth, leave room for nature, leave room for nature.
I personally find the comparison with cancer to be overestimating our importance in the big picture. That with a virus seems far more fitting, because that’s really what we seem to be if you consider the planet to be the living being we happen to be living on, or in. Still, the idea is certainly the right one. We should know that we are part of the world, not the other way around, and not only leave room but also care for all the other species we share this planet with, accepting the responsibility that comes with being the most evolved species on it.

Entire campaigns and movements are spurred into action when somebody tells a woman, not to mention women in general, not to dress in a certain way in order to avoid rape. And that’s certainly a good thing, because it’s the criminals who are to blame, not the victims. But then why is it all right to turn around and blame the victims, or at least strongly and publicly “advise” them to change their behavior, in other situations? Why is it all right and even a good thing to tell people not to leave belongings in visible places inside their parked cars or post on social networking sites when they’ll be away from home if they don’t want to be robbed? Why should people be advised not to go for a walk at night or pass through certain areas if they don’t want to be mugged? Isn’t it the same thing?
I would think that we fund law enforcement in order to feel safe and be able to do things that might theoretically attract criminals without fear, right? So being told to avoid such actions basically means that those who are supposed to keep us safe can’t do their jobs, but want to blame us for their failures. Which is the exact same thing that happens in the clothing and rape scenario, but I don’t really see people picking up on it, which just goes to show once again how our society separates anything having to do with sex from anything else.

How much you heard any of these things largely depends on the level of criminality in your country or region, so you should consider yourself lucky if you haven’t. But what I want to ask is why do those who do hear these things keep putting up with it, especially if it happens frequently? Where are the petitions, the protests and the movements that fight against this mentality and these practices in general, not only in one specific scenario? Am I just missing all of them or they really don’t exist, or at least not on a large enough scale to get any attention from the media or authorities?
I think we should react to any such “advice” very firmly and clearly. I think we should make it very clear that it’s the criminals who are to blame and they must be caught and punished in an exemplary fashion, so perhaps someday there will no longer be any need to guard ourselves against their behavior. I think we should no longer separate victims into categories according to vague social perceptions and instead state firmly that no victim’s passive behavior may be blamed for the criminal’s crime or used by law enforcement authorities as an excuse for their failures.
Actually, that’s even more valid when those same law enforcement authorities restrict our rights and abilities to defend ourselves, with lethal force if we deem it necessary, against these wrongdoers, forcing us to only rely on their services even when they keep proving to be inadequate. But that’s a story for another time…

I’ll start this with something Jen once said after being asked to help with basic computer issues one too many times by coworkers: “If I’m not good with cars, I don’t drive.” It’s something that many people, and especially those who design products, should take to heart. That way, maybe we could still reverse this drive to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator of the largest mass of people that can be found and get back to having powerful and very customizable products readily available for those who’d know what to do with them.
Incidentally, in case anyone failed to see this, releasing products that can be used by people who lack the skills or simply the intelligence to actually use them properly greatly increases the risk of misuse, which can have all sorts of troubling consequences. For one, said users can put themselves at risk, but what’s worse is that they can put others at risk through their behavior as well, whether we’re talking about “real life” risks, such as fire hazards or things that fall apart, or ending up unknowingly spreading malware over the Internet and other networks and attacking the devices used by others who would otherwise know how to keep themselves safe.

You see, products usually come with some things called instructions, which should be read and understood by users before trying to actually do anything with the product itself. That doesn’t mean that products should be unnecessarily complicated to operate, of course not, but it does mean that they should have settings and customization options and require whatever procedures are necessary to unleash their full potential while also allowing themselves to be adapted to the user’s needs and desires. And by this I mainly mean the needs and desires of advanced users, not to mention experts, who are likely to have requirements that are very different from those of the majority. After all, whether we’re talking about software, cars, household appliances or even something like a modular piece of furniture, there is no way to come up with a design and the settings that would work just as well for everyone, nor is it possible to make the most of a product meant only for a general audience. It’s often that some advanced users will even come up with uses for certain products that those who created them didn’t even think of, which are next to impossible to be properly supported by any general design or settings.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that the regular users should be given less importance or forced to put up with a too steep learning curve. They’re the ones the first few sections of any manual or instructions must be written for and the ones most default settings and usage examples should be meant for, offering them the opportunity to make reasonable use of the product while learning about its more advanced capabilities. However, it must be noted that by “regular users” I mean those who are at an intermediate level and the beginners who have the ability and the willingness to learn. Those who are unable to learn or simply unwilling to try should not be catered to in any way, so we won’t end up with a market filled with dumbed down products that take away options from those who’d know what to do with them because others would be frightened of making choices or doing anything without having their hand held all through the process.

Unfortunately, what we now see is just what shouldn’t happen. Products are being dumbed down, options and features are being removed, simply because some people would be scared by them. This can be seen in many cases, but it is clearly most noticeable when it comes to computer software, various simpler and less powerful devices to run said software also appearing with increased frequency. It’s like we’re padding the world, reducing the amount of space available for everyone and taking the possibility of admiring, repainting or even modifying the walls away from those who would know what to do with it, replacing all of that with a wide assortment of padding aimed at those who couldn’t otherwise understand that running right into a wall is likely to injure you.
To put it differently, there was a time when products were simple because they had to be. You had a device or a piece of software that only did one thing because that was all that the technology was capable of at the time, so you pressed a button, it did its job and then you put it away. Then the number of functions and options started increasing and those who knew how to properly “tweak” what they had could do more and more interesting things, which greatly helped all those who were intelligent and creative. Now, however, we’re seeing a reversal of that trend, and not due to any technological limitations but simply because everything around us is being designed more and more for idiots, whether we’re talking about people who actually are like that or about those who simply act like it sometimes.

If a product could theoretically do something, or even just look in a certain way, in the hands of a capable user, it should be able to. The option must not be taken away, nor should it be hidden or otherwise made more difficult to make use of, for fear that offering it directly would scare away a person who lacks the ability or the willingness to make proper use of the product. Beginners should have nice manuals and tutorials where applicable, intermediate users should have default settings and usage examples to make use of whenever they want the product to “just work” quickly or need something to fall back to after they tried something new and it didn’t work to their satisfaction, but that’s it. Even if they are a small minority, the advanced users and the experts should be catered to at least as much as the less skilled ones, and likely even more so. If any functions or customization options can be introduced, they must be introduced and made readily available, while any additional resources that may be left after designing a balanced product should be put into increasing the number of functions, customization options, efficiency and, if applicable, power of the product, not into making it easier to use for those who probably shouldn’t be using it in the first place. In fact, as I said before, stopping such people from using the product entirely would most likely benefit all of us in the long run.

Just spent a couple of hours in bed, alternating between curling up in a ball, rocking myself, clawing at sheets, clothes, skin and hair, thinking, daydreaming and trying to ignore the completely erratic beating of my heart. As such, I’m quite certain that nothing else is going to be written here this week, unless miracles happen. I’m really running out of space for personal posts, but I don’t really care anymore. I may just drop all those rules and any idea this blog was originally created for and just keep writing only such posts, to let out things that I see I’m better off only telling myself, or nobody at all.
Still looking for someone who’d fully understand this and agree with me. Or disagree in the sense of saying I should do far more to get her back and offering serious advice along those lines that wouldn’t involve playing any tricks or doing things that would require me to no longer be true to myself. That’d probably be even better… But understanding and agreement first, so all I have to say to all those who “just sometimes think it’ll pass”, tell me to “find some other girl” or keep quiet about the issue until I mention one of these other things and then haltingly express their agreement with whoever “had the balls to say it”, to mention only what I got today, is that my answer stays the same.
Actually, if that “I just sometimes think it’ll pass” wouldn’t have come from the person I most recently started having personal conversations with, it probably would have gotten a post of its own. Unfortunately, that person did get a link to that post before as well, yet this complete lack of understanding of the issue is still very obvious. But there’s little else to do, or at least little else I care to do, other than point people who tell me such things to that post and tell them to read it very carefully before saying anything else. In some cases it even partially worked, making people understand what I feel, apologize for ever suggesting such things before and not mentioning them again. The full agreement part is still missing, however.
Wish I wouldn’t need to look for someone who’d understand and agree with this. In fact, wish nobody would ever go through it… But that’s not how things stand, so I guess I’ll keep being all fucked up, running to the bathroom so I won’t shit in my pants three times per day and trying probably more and more desperate things as the time passes. As for whether it’s worth it, which was the question that followed in that conversation, I can only say that I’ll only be able to answer that with my dying breath. If I’ll somehow succeed soon enough to be able to say, on my dying day, that I spent more time with her than apart, then absolutely. And if I’ll fail in that but at least have her next to me at the end, it’ll still be something. If not, at least I’d have lived and died true to my feelings and beliefs. So whether or not this is actually worth it depends on the end result, but doing anything other than this would make absolutely everything be completely worthless and absolutely nothing could ever change that.

If in 2006 I said nothing and in 2007 I only said that I had nothing to say, in 2008 I was saying that, in case I’ll live that long, the three years that had passed at that point were likely to turn into six, or nine, or 30. Well, into six they just turned, and everything I said then still holds just as true… With the possible exception of no longer being able to get those passwords right on the first try, but I probably won’t try, or at least not tonight.
More recently, in 2009, I was mentioning things that I thought would have interested her, whether then or back when we were together. All of that still holds true as well, especially since I just visited a couple of such fairs recently, though I skipped the bread one, which just ended on Sunday. And gaming could also always be a topic, despite me playing so little this year and our tastes apparently having very little in common, at least based on what I can see she’s been playing.
As for last year, I was really down and not even looking for fond memories or bittersweet mental links. However, as you can see from the above paragraphs, I wouldn’t quite say that I’m still in that same place. Despite the lack of any reaction so far, the recent events have at least taken me back into a land of memories and dreams, though there’s still no reason for it to also be a land of hope in any way…

I can’t know what will happen next. Maybe it’ll be like I said in 2008, the six years turning into seven, eight, nine… Or maybe, just maybe, someday something will actually change for the better. This is the hope, no matter how fake, that I must keep holding on to. The only other suitable option, as I keep saying, was the one I was too much of a coward to make use of during that first year, when it would have made sense to do it.