Cav's Place

Ethics and business practices have little to nothing in common most of the time, the old adage stating that good business is manufacturing as cheaply as possible as many items as you could possibly sell at the highest possible price being the first rule in the vast majority of cases. Pharmaceutical companies, and the medical sector in general, are perhaps the best and most worrying example in support of that statement, their objective often ending up being to sicken as many people as possible and keep them sick as much as possible, as long as the illness in question can be managed and treated with their products. At worst, they could even resort to releasing diseases that they already have the cure for into the general population, but common scenarios actually include releasing treatments that never really cure the disease though a cure would in fact be possible, ensuring that regulations permitting the use of substances that could cause certain treatable diseases are adopted, making use of all their influence to push competing practices, such as alternative medicine, out of the market and perhaps even into illegality, and making people believe that they need to be medicated when in fact they do not. And this last method is the golden goose, especially when it comes to mental health.
But, despite that introduction, this is not a post about the health of people, but about the health of dogs. Because, you see, while otherwise all the diseases and conditions that can affect all the other species we share this planet with receive perhaps less time and attention from the medical sector than those affecting a single human organ, certain companies have decided that something needs to be done for the mental health of dogs. Which would be a laudable initiative, if only it wouldn’t involve encouraging people to medicate their dogs in order to get rid of behavior patterns that are perfectly normal under the stated conditions, therefore unnecessarily medicating yet another species.

To make it very clear for everyone, if a dog does certain things to let its owner know that it doesn’t like being left alone, the owner should spend more time with their dog! That’s how you get rid of these problems and how you “treat” this condition properly. Because a dog is a living being who has certain needs and desires, so if you get one you should be ready to fulfill those needs and desires, not figure out ways to remove them when they become inconvenient. Putting it bluntly, if you want something that’ll just be fluffy and cuddly and not bother you when you don’t want it to, you should get a stuffed toy, not a real animal!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the lack of response to a certain stimulus or situation usually considered a sign of disease or malfunction? If so, wouldn’t that mean that the dog’s brain is functioning exactly as it should if you’re really leaving it alone and it reacts to its situation? And wouldn’t that mean that, by reducing or even completely removing this response through medication, you’re actually causing your dog’s brain to function abnormally and potentially creating even worse problems in the long run?
Also, perhaps as a curiosity, I ask you to compare the list of symptoms the drug supposedly alleviates and the list of potential side effects. Interesting, isn’t it?

Of course, the drug itself is nothing new, as it had been approved for use in the USA a few years ago, but the fact that it has now been accepted on an European market as well is a huge step forward for pharmaceutical companies and all others who generally try to gain the most out of every situation by manipulating people, and a huge step back for anyone advocating a correct approach to medical conditions in general or even to the relationships between humans and members of other species.
But what would you expect when you take into account some of the changes that will apparently make it into the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? It follows the general rule that mental health professionals have been sticking to for the past several decades: Stick a “disorder” label on every possible behavior pattern, even if it’s absolutely normal, come up with a treatment for it that will earn you as much as possible and then convince as many people as possible that they suffer from the disorder in question and require your treatment. Oh, and also come up with better ways to keep the relatively few people who actually do have serious mental health issues out of sight and out of mind of the general population, not that much because they’d be a threat to themselves and others but mainly because it wouldn’t be profitable to find real cures for them and because the others may start making comparisons and realize, despite your best efforts, that there’s nothing actually wrong with them after all. And don’t forget to convince parents that there’s something very wrong with their children and your products are the only solution. But, as a backup measure, you may also replace children with pets and try once more.

On a somewhat different note, there’s one more thing that I want to point out because it has to do with pets and I believe it’s unethical: The pet washing machine. I firmly believe that having a machine wash your pet because you can’t be bothered to do it yourself and either can’t or don’t want to pay for a groomer is simply wrong. (I also think that using the services of a groomer or pet stylist is wrong, but it’s by far the lesser evil.) Not necessarily because the machine may cause injuries to the pet, but because using it proves that you can’t be bothered to give your pet the time and attention it needs, so its existence encourages unfit pet owners to become even worse, potentially making the pet mental health business flourish even more in the near future.

Yes, I’m fucking pissed. Or at least I made myself be pissed after spending three hours trying to get out of bed and only managing when I got angry enough to just get up in a rage, so that mood persisted. I guess turning sadness into rage can work for a little while. Not that this would be a new discovery, as it happened quite a few times before as well.
For the most part, the reasons are the usual ones… Plus certain skin problems flaring up again, which is awfully irritating. Plus something else I noticed a couple of days ago, which reminded me once again how much of a coward I am. Plus people rambling, without necessarily talking to me, about that utterly idiotic concept that happiness has little to nothing to do with external factors and is mainly a personal decision. Plus the fact that winter’s over…
I hoped there would be some traces of snow left outside my window at the end of the week, and perhaps a little even on Monday, but I’m not so sure anymore. There is a small area where snow takes longer to melt and a pile of snow formed somewhere by people who cleared it off other areas, but I’m starting to doubt that even those will last that long. Two days, most likely, but four or five seems quite improbable.

As always since she left, I just wish I’d wake up and realize that all this time has only been a very bad dream. Failing that, I wish she’d talk to me again, I’d learn that the thing I fear most didn’t happen and isn’t going to happen, we’d get close very quickly and then be together again within a reasonable time frame. Failing even that, I wish I was close to someone I could talk and cuddle with, probably preferably someone who’d be in a similar situation so she’d understand and we could just cry on each other’s shoulders and lick each other’s wounds, as they say, cutting ourselves away from the rest of the world as much as possible.
But failing all of those, I just want to smash something, or even someone, all right?

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?