Cav's Place

Two and a half months after the first part and nearly three weeks after the second, it seems that I’m finally going to finish answering these questions. So let’s see how it’ll turn out.

Am I greedy?
Quite the opposite. I tend to worry whenever I get something I’m not sure I need and really try to avoid having any significant number of things that money can buy around me.

Do I sell myself easily?
I don’t sell myself at all. Or at least certainly not for money or various favors. I could do things for friendship of course, but nothing that’d go against who I am and what I stand for.
But love’s a different matter. I did and would still do all I could for the one I love, likely even if it would go against all but one of the things I stand for. I wouldn’t be happy with it, but I’d consider the reward to be worth it, because there’s nothing more important for me personally than to be in a solid and loving relationship that works well. But all of this is purely hypothetical now…

Who do I love?
Andra, obviously…

Who do I want to meet?
Andra again, though this probably isn’t an appropriate answer for this question since in her case what I want is obviously to be together again, so just meeting won’t do that much good. Otherwise, Elena P. and Elena G., at least to have them look at me and explain why they vanished like they did and, in the latter’s case, why’s she ignoring me now. And Alina, most likely, because I’d really want to see how she is in person as well.
If this question actually meant to ask which famous person I’d want to meet, I’m sorry to disappoint, but there is none. I have no intention of meeting anyone I don’t already feel close to, which closeness would likely be the result of talking on-line.

Do I care about what others think of me?
I care what Andra thinks of me, though a better question would be if she ever happens to think of me at all these days, even in passing. Otherwise, I may sometimes care a little about what the few people I consider, or would like to consider, as my friends think of me, but perhaps mostly out of curiosity, since I wouldn’t change anything I do or say because of what they think.
But I think this question is mainly about random people, those I don’t feel close to, in which case I really couldn’t care less. They’re welcome to think whatever the fuck they want.

What’s my talent?
I can’t really say that I have one. I seem to have a knack for getting on people’s nerves by arguing against them, and I could do reasonably well in debates in general, especially if I care about the topic. Another thing is that I think in numbers and statistics and like to work with them, as long as we’re only talking about working with numbers and not significant mathematics. But I wouldn’t say any of these is even remotely close to what I’d call a talent.

Do I use that talent?
No. I don’t use any debate skills I may have nearly as much as I could or should because ever since Andra left I no longer feel comfortable even on forums or discussion groups, so there isn’t that much that I still do “in public” because I tend to move along as soon as a significant number of people get involved even on-line. As for the other potential skill, the only way I can think of using it so I’ll actually be interested in what I’m doing would be game design, creating the units, spells, skills, weapons, equipment and any other systems and mechanics that are part of complex RPGs and TBS games, since these two genres allow for the most complexity. But that would have only worked back when “two guys in a garage” could make a good game, because I obviously couldn’t function in any of the companies that currently create computer games.

What makes me happy?
Being in a solid relationship that works well, with my partner offering me all the time and attention I need. Followed, a long distance behind, by having a couple of extremely close friends, who’d be as open towards me as I am towards them, so we’d spend a lot of time talking about anything and everything, but especially about personal and sensitive topics.
On a lesser level, feeling that I’m actually doing something to make the world a better place, as long as it doesn’t require skills I don’t have or direct interaction with people I don’t already feel close to. Also, winning arguments, in the sense of convincing someone else that I’m right when the topic in question is important to me. And perhaps also fooling around with game design plans, or occasionally even working out the mechanics behind the games I’m playing.
And winter. Actual winter, I mean, when there’s a lot of snow and it’s cold enough for it to settle nicely and stay on the ground for a long time without melting.

What makes me sad?
The lack of the first three things I mentioned in my previous answer. Especially the first one. Also, what humanity has turned this world into, the direction of our society, the way we treat the other species we share this planet with and the environment as a whole and the apathy of most people. And my current living situation.
On a shallower note, since I mentioned winter as making me happy, sunlight usually makes me sad. Or perhaps not sad, but awfully uncomfortable.

What annoys me?
Ignorance, stupidity, selfishness, greed, deceit, people who hurt others without a good cause, consumerism, people who impose their views on others who’re not really hurting anyone with their current behavior… And people who have children of course, but that’s way above and beyond anything that the term “annoyance” could possibly cover. Plus what I mentioned in my previous answer, excepting the lack of the things that make me happy.

What was the most difficult period of my life?
Most difficult in the sense of what I had to do was likely the time I was in school, especially before high school, when I was just living in terror but was forced to keep going and had nothing to hold on to or hope for. But the most difficult period to cope with must have been after I got thrown back here, in 2006, especially while dad still insisted for me to eat with him and shoved his plans for my room down my throat.

What was the easiest period of my life?
The easiest to cope with, since it was the only time I thought there was any point in living, was obviously the time I was living with Andra. But the easiest in the sense of having pretty much nothing to do and people not really having any expectations from me or putting any pressure on me is probably now, for the past year and a half or so, after things finally cooled down with dad.
There was a quote: “I find it far more annoying when the universe makes you work for your damnation. I’d prefer it just gave it to me, save me the effort.” That’s pretty much how it is for me now… Things are bad, but at least I’m spared the effort, unlike before when keeping up with demands and expectations only turned things from bad to worse.

What’s my biggest regret?
This is too easy: Failing to somehow prevent the relationship with Andra from ending. And, since then, failing to somehow convince her to give me another chance. And failing to even figure out how I could have possibly done either of these things.

Trying to figure out which of the many topics I mean to write about I will actually manage to think about long and coherently enough for a post isn’t getting me anywhere… I tried to just stick to playing King’s Bounty: The Legend, which I got by purchasing the February issue of a gaming magazine from here that includes a full game, or sometimes even two, every month, and delay the inevitable as much as possible, but it seems that this is about as much as possible. So here I am crumbling past the point of being able to catch myself again.
Valentine’s Day may be just a commercial annoyance and back when we were together might have been only something between a slight annoyance and a little excuse to have some fun, but now it serves as one more reminder of what I lost. Though her birthday, which was just before it, was likely the most powerful reminder of the two. Either way, these two things added on top of the usual mood and once again made it too hard to successfully lie to myself that there may still be another chance someday, and failing to do that got me where I am now, once again struggling to find any reason worth getting out of bed for after waking up except the fact that I need to run to the bathroom, and then more or less drifting off into the depths the entire day.
Maybe by the end of the week I’ll somehow manage to pull myself back together just enough to tackle one of those issues I mean to write about, or at least finish answering those questions (different link on each word). If not, whoever may be reading this will just get another helping of self-pity from me…

It’s Global Population Speak Out time again and, unlike last year, this time around I plan to keep it relatively short and simple. Imagine that we’re sitting down and having a little chat during which I’m trying to explain just why is overpopulation such a huge problem. But first I’m going to ask you to watch a short video, since a graphical representation should put things into perspective better than numbers.

As you can see, while there has almost constantly been a net growth, and while that net growth would have ended up being a problem anyway, the real population explosion came with the advent of modern medicine, proving once again that we are fully capable of immediately turning a good thing into a bad one. Modern medicine has increased the lifespan of people and has greatly reduced the number of children dying at birth or during infancy, but the birth rates failed to drop according to the new death rates.
To give a very simple example, I could say that if a couple had six children before the advent of modern medicine and four of them died at birth or during infancy and the other two would have had children of their own only after the premature deaths of their parents, you’d have no real population growth. If that same situation would repeat itself after modern medicine would ensure the survival of all six children, you’d have significant population growth. But even that’s not enough, since it doesn’t factor in the longer lifespans. In order to do that, I’d have to point out that if a couple has one child, who also has one child, who in turn also has one child, all of this happening before the deaths of the two original couple members, you’d still have some population growth. That should make it easier to understand how low should birth rates now be in order to even maintain the current population levels. And keep in mind that the world is already severely overpopulated, so the population actually needs to drastically drop, meaning that a large number of people need to have no children at all if we’re to have even the slightest chance of success.
Sure, we could reduce population the other way as well, by greatly increasing the number of deaths and reducing the average lifespan once again. It’d be very effective and there certainly are various conspiracy theories saying that it’s already being done, especially considering what’s being put into our food, but is that what you wish? Would you rather have people get sick more often and die younger once again just to be able to preserve these completely unsustainable birth rates that so many people feel they have a “right” to? Would you rather give up your life and the lives of others just to be able to throw other souls into this rotten society we have created for ourselves, only to have them ultimately also share your fate? Ultimately, would you rather suffer for the sole purpose of creating more suffering?

But I’m getting ahead of myself, because I didn’t explain why I’m saying that we’re too many. I won’t start with facts, figures and studies regarding the carrying capacity of Earth because I said I’ll keep this relatively short and simple and I’m sure you can find those yourselves if you so desire. I’ll just try to follow a logical path to its conclusion.
Like any other living being, humans consume resources. However, unlike the other species, which tend to be more specialized, humans consume many different types of resources. In addition, human consumption also generates a lot of waste, often in the form of harmful substances. This makes each individual human have a significant environmental footprint, depleting existing resources through consumption and also reducing their potential regeneration through pollution. It also means that, unlike other species, humans are much harder to keep in check through the availability of certain specific resources. When the supply of a certain type of resource dwindles or is exhausted, we tend to start replacing it with another and continue our growth, never giving the ecosystem time to rebalance as other species are usually forced to do.
Yes, a person who is not poor could argue that our consumption patterns are the problem, because people generate too much unnecessary waste and use non-renewable resources when renewable alternatives could exist. But, as I said, that’s only true for those who are not poor and, in fact, most people are poor. If you’re reading this it means you’re not among them and could perhaps have difficulty understanding the full extent of the issue, but the fact is that the majority of the individuals that make up humanity live in poor conditions, being able to use even less than they’d actually need in order to attain anything resembling a reasonable standard of living. So, in all fairness, while the consumption and waste generation of the minority could and certainly should drastically decrease, the environmental footprint of the majority should actually increase. That prevents any significant reduction of the average individual footprint. In fact, it could even require increasing it. And I think anyone who’s willing to look can see that we are already consuming more than our poor planet can regenerate and generating more waste than it can absorb.
It could also be argued that, even under these conditions, a lot of these problems could be solved by switching to renewable resources and adapting our production methods to reduce the use of pollutants. And that is true, but only to a certain extent. For example, we could certainly generate electricity without using non-renewable resources, but we’d still need some of those resources in order to build the systems required for this, not to mention needing the actual space to install them in. We could also switch back to fully organic agriculture and fair and clean practices when it comes to livestock, but how many people could we adequately feed under those circumstances and how much space would we need for all those new farms that’d have to, for example, manage without artificial fertilizers and avoid depleting the soil? And what about something as obvious as space? What about being able to have a house with a reasonably sized yard instead of being squeezed into a towering apartment building, or being able to go for a walk without needing to squeeze through the crowds. And let’s not even mention traffic… All of these things show us that there is indeed a limit for our population and that we have exceeded it even now, despite making use of existing non-renewable resources and expanding in a desperate attempt to delay paying the price for as long as possible.
And I didn’t even mention all the other species that we share this planet with and that we carelessly sweep aside and drive towards extinction as we look for just a little more space, just a few more usable resources, just a little more fertile soil, constantly expanding like any ancient empire you can think of, which couldn’t sustain itself without constantly conquering new lands and which inevitably crumbled under its own weight when there was nothing left to conquer. That’s where we are and that’s what we’re doing: Reenacting the fall of any major empire in our history on a global scale, proving that we haven’t learned anything in all this time.

Lastly, I’d like to counter an argument I have seen used plenty of times so far, namely the idea that perhaps that one child a person chooses not to have would have been the one to figure out a way to solve all these problems. For the sake of argument, let’s ignore everything I already pointed out and assume that such a solution that’d allow for continued population growth, or even for maintaining the current population, could possibly exist. In that situation, it does indeed follow that such a child could potentially be the one who’d figure it out. But the chances of that happening are infinitesimal at best, while the fact that said child would consume resources and generate waste in varying amounts is a certainty.
To put it into perspective, I’ll say that having a child because that child could potentially solve all these problems is something like going into a crowded place with a loaded gun, closing your eyes, spinning around a few times and then shooting at random. Sure, you can’t completely rule out the possibility of somehow managing to hit someone who was just about to start a killing spree or worse, but the odds are so firmly stacked against it that nobody could even conceive of something like that as a viable solution for fighting crime. So why are people thinking that having a child could ever prove to be a solution for this problem?

To end with some numbers, I’ll say that I firmly believe that a sustainable human population is certainly below three billion, and I’d feel much better if it’d actually be around or even below two billion. It’s too late to avoid reaching seven billion now, but perhaps we still have a small chance of reversing this trend and bringing the population down to a sustainable level in time if we drastically regulate people’s right to breed and take a few other measures that won’t cause any real harm. If not, the problem will eventually solve itself in an unspeakably terrible manner.
One scientist was noticing the trend and pointing this problem out over two centuries ago. He was laughed at and silenced. Others were doing the same nearly 40 years ago. They were also silenced, because the general public didn’t want to know. We could have had all this time to act, but we failed to do so. Yet we may still have a third and last chance now. At this point, all solutions are hard and no path is smooth, but maybe, just maybe, if we act immediately, we can still choose to solve this problem ourselves and in a reasonable manner before it will be solved for us in the hardest and most terrible way imaginable. We may still have this choice. The question is, what will we do with it?

As they’re constantly moving further down the path of censorship, the Australian authorities have recently decided that people also need to be told exactly what kind of pornographic materials they should want to watch or get off on. For that purpose, they decided to refuse classification for depictions of female ejaculation or of women with small breasts, which means that such depictions are now banned.
This has attracted the anger of certain individuals who don’t care to be “better” than the ones they fight against, but just want to make a point. I even saw a long message that Akismet caught last evening, which included the reasons behind the plan, links to information about the methods that should be used, the URLs that would be targeted and contact information for various government officials. I didn’t pay attention to the date it was supposed to happen on, but I see that the appropriately-called “Operation: Titstorm” started today, bringing down some government servers. I personally find the other part of the plan, involving flooding officials’ inboxes with exactly the kind of pornography they’re banning, to be much more amusing and appropriate, but I guess such attacks are too much of a staple for such groups not to be included in this kind of operations.
But let me return to the matter at hand and see how do the Australian officials justify these measures.

When it comes to banning depictions of female ejaculation, they argue that it’s either urination, depictions of which are already banned, or simply that it’s abhorrent. They also don’t really seem to believe that it could sometimes actually happen in pretty “normal” scenarios, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, which makes me once again wonder why are people who obviously don’t know much about a certain subject allowed to create the laws governing it?
I find it interesting that female ejaculation is abhorrent, but there’s nothing wrong with male ejaculation. I for one find facials, which are the industry standard, to be quite gross, but I don’t see anything about those in this decision. Though, before they get any ideas, I must stress that there shouldn’t be anything censored when it comes to any of this, so even the ban on “golden showers” that was mentioned and whatever others I’m sure are already in place are wrong. It’s all right to require warnings to be included, so people will know what to expect and be able to avoid looking at something that’d bother them, but there’s no excuse for banning such things, even if they would be abhorrent! If nobody’d want to watch them, such depictions wouldn’t exist. But since certain people want to watch them, they should have every right to do so, which automatically implies that people should also have the right to produce them. And nobody’s making the rest watch, so it should be very simple: If watching something would bother you, don’t watch it!
Another issue is that likely a significant portion of the depictions of female ejaculation seen in pornographic productions are fake. In which case, one has to wonder what exactly are they banning? If it’s just water being held inside the vagina and then pushed out to somehow mimic ejaculation, why would you ban it? I mean, it’s just water!
And let’s not forget the kind of message this sends to those women who do ejaculate a significant amount at least sometimes, if not most or all of the time, few as they may be. Seems like the Australian government decided that people didn’t already have enough reasons to feel bad about their own bodies and their natural physiological processes and meant to make sure that one more group will have a reason to be disgusted with themselves. That’s what I understand from sticking the label of “abhorrent” to it, at least.

As for the issue of small breasts, it has been clarified as not specifically targeting women with small breasts, though this is what has apparently been banned under this rule so far, but as a ban on offensive depictions of persons who appear to be under 18, whether or not they are involved in sexual activity and despite making absolutely certain that all models are indeed at least 18. That’s something like banning movies that feature actors appearing dead, or sick, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Actually, I wonder if this couldn’t also apply to non-pornographic movies that feature certain scenes involving characters who are supposed to be under 18, since it says that being involved in explicit sexual activity is not required.
Sure, the usual excuse of fighting against child pornography is used to justify this silly measure, but it has absolutely nothing to do with that. For one, I still say there’s a difference of at least six years between being a child and being underage according to current laws, but I’ll let this pass until a method of judging a person’s maturity level that actually makes any sense will be implemented. The problem here is that they’re banning offensive depictions of persons who appear to be under 18, even though they most certainly are not. That makes me wonder who has the job of looking through it all and determining who appears to be under 18 and who doesn’t? What kind of criteria are used? Small breasts seem to be one, but what about those who shave or wax their pubes, making it seem like they have no hair there at all? Or what about small penises? Or being short?
There’s also the matter of defining an offensive depiction. What exactly falls under this category, seeing as they say it’s not limited to explicit sexual activity? Not that I’d find explicit sexual activity to be offensive, but if they’re talking about even more than that, what is it? And, again, who gets to make that call?
Plus that, as in the matter of female ejaculation, it seems like the Australian government really wants to make people hate their own bodies even more. What kind of message does this send to women with small breasts or any other legal adults who exhibit the features deemed as belonging to underage individuals? And, though perhaps this could be a stretch, what implications could it have on the physical features that Australians will be looking for in each other if they won’t be allowed to see pornographic materials depicting some of them? Couldn’t that increase the unhappiness of those who exhibit those features even further?

Once again, as long as nobody is doing anything against their will, why would a government need to tell people what they should and should not enjoy? As long as the actors or models are fully willing to take part, the movies or pictures in question should be produced. And as long as they are produced, those who wish to see them should be allowed to do so. To my mind, it’s really as simple as that.
When something is permitted, people can choose not to take part in it, so simply allowing something doesn’t equal encouraging it in any way, but only grants people the right to choose for themselves. Forbidding something, on the other hand, is similar to making something compulsory, because it takes away people’s right to choose for themselves and attempts to force them to conform to the will of the authorities.

I’ve been planning this for a while and thought I’d go all out and see what the whole IMAX 3D business is all about as well. This is something you obviously mainly go to see for the effects, so why cut yourself short? Besides, it’s the first time I’ve been to the movies in five or six years, and this is the first movie I thought was worth seeing in a theater in probably even longer. That said and since the theater allows people to make on-line reservations, I went outside the range the site normally allows you to select and made them some ten days ahead, for yesterday. That and the fact that I picked the noon showing meant I could pick a seat right in the middle. Middle row, center seat. In hindsight, I probably should have picked a seat a couple of rows more towards the front, because at first I had the tendency to want to look up and kept needing to correct myself and look straight ahead or even a little down at times.
Of course, since this actually involved me going to a theater by myself and interacting with someone in order to get the actual ticket, I didn’t exactly think I’d manage. With a card on my hands I could have bought the ticket on-line as well and spare myself all the trouble, but as it was I took advantage of the opportunity to reduce the amount of interaction and thought I’d give it a shot. Then again, on-line reservations seem to be more like a necessity than an opportunity for this one. I mean, it’s the only IMAX in Romania and last month it was saying that no more seats were available even a week ahead for three of the four daily showings of Avatar, only the noon one talking longer to fill. Now you can still find a few on shorter notice, but good seats still go very quickly.

Either way, I got there about one hour and 20 minutes ahead of the time of the showing and gave it a try. It was obviously much easier than it’d have been to actually buy the ticket directly from there, because instead of needing to walk up and say I want a ticket for this and that and pick the seat out of what’s available I just asked what should I do if I made an on-line reservation, was told to give the code and did just that. The guy did ask what movie and what time was the reservation for, probably just to check, but saying something already settled was far less taxing than actually asking myself, if that makes sense… Still, I really felt crushed by that brief exchange and when the guy, probably realizing I was there for the first time, told me how to get to the IMAX hall and that I could get in 15 minutes before the starting time, I felt the need to explain myself, despite my showing up early being obviously explained by the fact that they require on-line reservations to be picked up at least 30 minutes before the starting time and strongly suggest picking them up even earlier to avoid queues. Because of that, I muttered “I have something else to do anyway”. Thinking about it later and since the difference is only a single letter in Romanian, I realize that it could have sounded more like “I don’t have anything else to do anyway”, so that made me feel even worse…

I did actually have something else planned to do that day, because at first I meant to get there some two hours early, giving me enough time to reach a park that’s in that area and where I’ve never been before, take a brief walk through it and then come back by the starting time. But that didn’t work out, because I changed my mind too many times and ended up setting the alarm a bit too late. On top of that, to put it bluntly, I was too tense to be able to take a dump before leaving but also too worried I’ll end up needing to go while there if I don’t to give up too quickly. Still had to give up, so it only delayed me even further and made the idea of going to that park pointless because, as things stood, I would have had probably just enough time to get there and back, adjusting for walking on icy sidewalks…
So I just went out of the mall and walked aimlessly around for a while, getting back 30 minutes before the starting time and getting myself briefly lost on purpose, to make it a little interesting. (As an added note, I think about half the women I saw there, not including employees, were wearing something made of fur. Now of course I can’t know how many were wearing real fur, but it bothered me anyway.) Made my way inside just a little less than 15 minutes before the starting time and, seeing as I wanted to avoid as many potential problems as possible and knowing that I failed to avoid a related one before leaving, I made for the bathroom. Had been out in the cold too, so was feeling a bit of a pressing need anyway.
The problem with that was that I managed to make a fool of myself. At first I accidentally walked into the women’s bathroom, said “woops, sorry” in English, since I was too surprised myself to translate the thought in time, and obviously caused some startled faces… Then went to the men’s, did my business and meant to wash my hands… Only to be unable to figure out how to turn the water on! Just noticed one thing I could press on the sink, pressed it and nothing happened. Moved to the other sink, pressed it there too, but that only turned on the hand dryer. Tried again, which obviously only generated the same result. At that point I meant to give up while I still had a shred of dignity and walked out, but heard water running behind me just as I was going out the door, so I turned around and saw the next person washing their hands well enough. That made me go back in to try again, at first by pressing that thing yet again, which obviously didn’t cause anything new to happen, and then attempting to push and rotate various things that were obviously fixed in place. In the end I had to give up yet again, feeling awfully stupid…

Once the movie started, not having any need for subtitles proved to be extremely useful, seeing as you can’t add anything to an IMAX film and therefore they’re projected over it, without 3D effects, meaning that you see them through the 3D glasses pretty much like you’d see a 3D movie without the glasses, obviously. That explains the people complaining of sickness while watching it and splitting headaches afterwards. There even was a warning before the movie, to remove your glasses and close your eyes for a few seconds if you feel sick.
As for the movie itself… Hell, absolutely impressive. Of course, not much of a story, but you don’t go to see it expecting a brilliant story. The underlying message’s very appropriate though. And, of course, the battle scenes were making me cry again, as such scenes usually do when they’re filmed properly, but I felt too exposed due to being there by myself and kept swallowing back my tears. Some of the others didn’t stop themselves, because I heard some sobbing around me, but I felt too unsafe as it was. Really hated that. I’m normally struggling, and failing, to find something that’d allow me to cry because I need that release but can’t cry when alone, and now when I found something I stopped myself…

As a final note, when walking out, just as I was getting to the place where the trash cans were, I heard someone say “truth is that we are a race that generates a whole lot of trash” behind me. Someone else replied with “species, not race, but that we are”. I glanced around and saw that the exchange took place between two men looking to be past 50. Well, if the mix of the movie and those trash cans could make two men in their fifties think of that, it’s a good step…