Cav's Place

I saw a question in a survey once which has been on my mind ever since. It asked if you have suffered longer than the relationship lasted. In this desperate attempt to at least find milestones in the future since there’s nothing to live for but I’m too much of a coward to do what needs to be done, it became sort of a goal for me, to make it far enough to be able to answer “yes” to that question. Now I have…
At least I hope my calculations are right. Not that a day more or a day less would matter that much… Still, I took some time two days ago, while I was lying in bed after waking up after only some three and a half hours of sleep, to determine it exactly, since an initial approximate calculation, made at the time I saw that question, said that moment would come on December 12th, 2008. It would appear that I was only wrong by one day.

That first kiss was on July 12th, 2002. It happened around 11 PM, but that was our anniversary so I’ll start from that day. From July 12th, 2002 to July 11th, 2005 there are three years, one of which a leap year. That means 1096 days.
Despite other days appearing better suited for this, I’ll consider the day she left, September 27th, 2005, as the day she broke up with me and the first day of suffering, especially since she left around 4 AM. From July 12th to September 11th there are two months. Since both July and August have 31 days, that means there are 62 days. That brings the total to 1158 days.
From the 12th to the 26th there are 15 days. That means we were together for a total of 1173 days.

From September 27th, 2005 to September 26th, 2008 there are three years, one of which a leap year. Once again, 1096 days.
From September 27th to November 26th there are two months, but only 61 days since September has only 30 days. That means I need to add one more day, November 27th, to get to the 62 days of the two months taken into account above. (I assume this is where I went wrong when I tried to approximate the date the first time.) That makes 1158 days.
From November 28th to December 12th there are 15 days. That brings the total to 1173 days.

That means the next day, today, December 13th, 2008, is the day I can answer “yes” to that question. Of course, a person who has been in a relationship for just one week and got over it ten days later could say the same thing and hardly mean anything by it. Still, I wanted to make it this far.
I didn’t dare hope we’d be together again before this day, not even about a year ago, when we were talking again, so the option of not reaching this day due to a happy event did not exist. Of course, I could have died before this day, but knowing that I don’t have the courage to kill myself that meant it had to happen due to a disease or an accident, which would have most likely meant added suffering for some time, so that wasn’t desirable. Besides, since I couldn’t do it when I should have, I might as well try to stick around for as long as there is still a theoretical chance.

Speaking of that theoretical chance, from my point of view it still exists as long as no children are involved. She changed her mind about wanting to be with me once, so it is at least theoretically possible that someday she’ll do so again, though I truly hope she won’t hurt someone else in order to do that as she hurt me the first time around. However, I will not change my mind about children. I clearly consider human overpopulation as the worst problem this world is facing and therefore see having children under these circumstances as the worst crime possible and do not want anything to do with anyone who commits it, and Andra’d be no exception. I also include adoption or simply caring full time for other people’s children here, because knowing that these options exist encourages some to have children even if they know they couldn’t care for them. (I make an exception for children whose parents and grandparents have died or are incapacitated due to severe illness, but I’d still hate what they represent so I wouldn’t want to be around them myself. I think they have enough problems without me sending bad energy their way, albeit not on purpose.) So I just hope that’ll never be the case…
Actually, I hope it’ll never be the case but fear that it will, or already is. Some of the things she said when we last talked made me worry less about this, but others had quite the opposite effect. This is why I find myself wanting to hear from her, or at least of her, again, but at the same time fearing that moment. It’s absolutely the only thing which could and certainly would make me not want to be with her again, but it wouldn’t change what I feel and it wouldn’t make me look for anyone else either. I said my promises are forever and that won’t change. This means that, if children would end up being involved at some point, there wouldn’t even be a theoretical chance left of anything good ever happening in this life of mine.

This is probably what kept me from sending something to Dave for the past few weeks. Feeling absolutely awful and just needed to throw something their way, and since it’s quite obvious she has me on ignore I felt it had to go to him. Of course, he could have me on ignore just as well, but I don’t know that. It wouldn’t have been something bad or angry, I just needed to say something about how I’m feeling…
Last night I did it… I’ve been struggling really hard not to for the past few days and thought this couldn’t last for long, so I said I’d better send something now, when there’s an “occasion”, an event I can start from, a chance to say something which might have some meaning, than try to hold back and inevitably end up blurting out something a few days later, when I wouldn’t be able to stop myself anymore.
Now, of course, since I sent him a message, I don’t dare log on to Yahoo! Messenger again, just in case he did get it and did reply and that reply might mention something I fear… As much of a coward as always, of course…

But now my question is… What next? Ever since I saw that question it was sort of a goal to make it this far, but now that I did… Where do I go from here? What else could keep me getting out of bed every day when hope’s too slim to make any difference?
When I asked someone that yesterday I was told “you’ll be fine”. Right, easy for you to say… Not that I expected anything else, nobody understands… Or at least nobody I know. I’m sure there are some other people in a similar situation, but I never seem to meet any. Why is that?

This post is going to be a collection of thoughts regarding this season and all the consumerist insanity and stupidity it generates, so I’m going to move from one to another rather quickly. They are just my usual thoughts about these things, so it seems rather pointless to delve deeply into them yet again.

Giving gifts on a certain occasion takes away any meaning they might have had.
If the gift is something the receiver really wanted, offering it when the occasion traditionally demands giving gifts leaves the impression that you could have obtained it sooner, and likely did so, but preferred to wait for that specific day to give it. That means your main motivation was not to offer that person something they wanted, but to have something to give them for that occasion because you felt you had to give them something then. It’s not about them, it’s about you.
If the gift isn’t even something they really wanted then it’s even more clear. You never cared about them at all, you just completed a chore, bought something generic, gave it and called it a job well done. Only it isn’t…
If you want to give someone a gift, you ask them exactly what they want. If they give you an answer and you can afford it, you get it for them as soon as possible, without waiting for any occasion. And if they tell you they don’t want anything, or at least not from you, listen to them! If they say that but expect you to ignore them and get them something anyway it’s their problem, not yours. Your problem is if you get them something they don’t want or wait to give them something they do want until an occasion makes it “appropriate”.
Besides… By far the best gifts are those which money can’t buy.

Which brings us to consumerism. Especially during the holidays, people allow themselves to be brainwashed by this notion that buying things will solve their problems, will make them happier, will please their friends and family and perhaps even appease their enemies. It certainly works for some, but not for long. And besides, why would a thinking person care for those who can be bought?
It’s insanity! Everybody wasting time and money to buy what they are told they need, or at least would make things better. The sad part is that some of them know they’ll be too tired from all the running around and preparations and too worried by the fact that they will have money problems for months to come as a result of their shopping spree to enjoy their purchases, but they still get caught up in it. It’s a tide which many lack the strength to swim against and it shows how not fighting against society is enough to support it.

Which brings me to this… I was looking through one of the many catalogs making their way into this house, thinking the usual thoughts about wasting paper, giving bad gifts and consumerism, when I saw a section with traditional food and sweets. It struck me how sad it is that people these days work more and more in order to earn more and more in order to be able to afford to buy more and more of the things they have less and less time to do themselves because of all the time they spend working in order to be able to afford buying them.
It’s a vicious circle that most people don’t seem to even want to get out of anymore. I guess giving up is their right, but why do they have to take the rest down with them? Because that’s what they’re doing since, as I said above, not fighting against the status quo implies that you support it.

I said I wanted to take a break from playing Perfect World International, but was curious enough to return, at least for a while. That curiosity faded away very quickly and now all my plans regarding that game consist of deleting my characters and uninstalling it. The only thing keeping me from doing just that right now is that I like to clean up the registry after uninstalling a program, as uninstallers never handle that part properly, but I’m feeling a bit too lazy for it at the moment.

To stick to the topic of MMOGs, at some point in the past I realized that the only reason I keep my Materia Magica character is that I want to give everything away before deleting and I can’t even be bothered to arrange that. Not to mention that the thought of needing to say goodbye to a few people who have been in that clan (SpiritWalk) for a very long time might make me reconsider once again, despite hardly having anything to do with them anymore. Happened twice already.
I haven’t been playing for two years, just logging in now and then so those in the clan I’m in will see I’m still alive, and also to pay my shop fees and collect the profits. For quite some time I managed to still restock my shop and stick around for about one hour each time I logged in, which was usually twice per week, killing various things to practice my skills. Lately I can’t even bring myself to do that anymore, so I just poke my head in briefly to pay the shop fees once per week. That makes me lose money, since there isn’t much left in my shop and therefore there can be no sales to cover the fees I have to pay to keep it open, making me have less to give away in the end.
I don’t want to just delete. I have a house, quite a lot of money and plenty of useful items on that character, so giving them away seems like the right thing to do before deleting, making sure they won’t simply get lost… But that will require some organization and I just can’t get myself to deal with such a game for long enough to take care of that anymore.

Otherwise, right now I’m playing Arx Fatalis. Or at least I would be if it wouldn’t keep crashing so often! It’s a pretty nice game which I’ve been meaning to play for a long time, and the magic system is particularly interesting, but the frequent crashes make the experience very frustrating and I don’t seem to be making much progress. I guess that’s to be expected from what is essentially a “player project”, even after all the patches.
Before this, I played and finished Diablo II (including the Lord of Destruction expansion). I thought I might as well try it at some point since so many are still praising it so many years after release and quickly regretted my decision. Kept playing it because it became a challenge, I just wanted to beat it, not give up. However, from my point of view it was a pretty poor game turned awful by the fact that you couldn’t save, or at least not really. I guess the fact that I played it after Divine Divinity didn’t help it either, as that game takes a lot of elements from Diablo II and actually uses them properly, creating a great RPG around those mechanics.

Last but not least, I’m still wondering what will happen with my video card. The initial plan was to get this cheap one when I got everything else, in April, and then replace it in autumn with the second best card from the next generation released by NVIDIA. Then dad once again, as expected, went back on his word about a month later and I had to say I’ll delay the purchase for the start of 2009.
Thinking about it right now, the delay didn’t really affect me. That “second best from the next generation” would be the GeForce GTX 260, but there are a few things that bother me when it comes to it, the most important being the power drain. The next option would now be the GeForce 9800 GTX+, but that isn’t significantly more appealing to me either. Which leaves me thinking that the “best buy” would still be the card I had my eyes on when I got all the other parts, ASUS GeForce 8800 GTS 512 TOP. Back then, when I decided to give up on it, it was partly because of my dad’s complaints about money but mainly because I thought something truly better would come along soon enough. That doesn’t seem to be the case, and it’d be extremely hard to find this one in stock anywhere now.
Considering the fact that I’d really like to play some newer games, which this card couldn’t handle properly, I find myself in an uncomfortable situation. Of course, even if something nice would appear on the market soon, which seems unlikely, it would still be quite surprising if dad would actually keep his word when it comes to money for once. And yes, I completely ignore ATI/AMD.

I wrote that putting a price tag on nature according to the monetary value of the services it provides to humans can be useful in persuading authorities and companies to care for it if all fair methods fail, at least until cheaper methods of providing the same services become available. It’s obviously wrong to look at nature in terms of the services it provides, but it is a means to an end.
However, if we don’t want this to blow up in our faces later, we need to make sure that those government officials and corporate managers will be people who care for nature for its intrinsic value before technology will be able to replace the services it provides. To that end, we need to make sure that the “average person” starts putting nature before the economy and their personal financial interests now! Or we could at least start by ensuring that those who don’t do that won’t have access to higher positions…

You just can’t take this speech about the monetary value of nature to the average person on the street. Those people must support environmentalists and pressure governments and corporations into doing the right thing, which won’t happen if they see nature just as a provider of services. They must be persuaded to help if possible, set aside if they’ll neither help nor hinder, or destroyed by any means necessary if they try to stop plans meant to protect the environment. Once again, such a noble end really does justify the means.
There are nearly seven billion humans today, but we only have one Earth. We can’t sacrifice Earth for humans, but we can and must sacrifice some humans for Earth. We can tell those in power what they want to hear in order to get things done now, before they can be replaced, but other approaches must be used on the rest. Thinking of nature in terms of the monetary value of the services it provides is simply too wrong to do unless absolutely necessary.

It’s probably obvious that this post is born more out of anger than anything else. What infuriated me and made me want to write it was the end of the article about Borneo from the November edition of National Geographic Magazine.
No, the way to protect forests and biodiversity is not to make sure that people can get the things they want for themselves and a good future for their children, preferably without more plantations and strip mines… The first thing needed in order to protect the environment is a drastic reduction of the number of humans, which means that people must first not have those children that they want a future for. That would take care of an important part of the problem. As for the other part, it should be the other way around. Yes, it would be preferable to be able to also give people what they need, but only when (and if) it will be possible to do so without harming the environment!

Humans think they’re more than they are and we need to look at things from another perspective. Humans are not the center of the Universe! They’re not even the most important thing on Earth, the Earth itself is! You don’t need to look for ways to convince them that doing the right thing is in their own best interest. If a person doesn’t understand that the right thing is the right thing regardless of any personal interests they might have and the cause doesn’t require that specific person’s aid at that specific moment, they must be kicked aside and left there as long as they don’t get in the way. If they decide to get in the way, they must be removed by any means necessary.
There was a phrase on the site of the Romanian Green Party which said that they don’t support “environmental terrorism”, but want to achieve the best possible level of environmental protection without sacrificing the well-being of the people who depend on it. I’m sick and tired of that! I want the best possible conditions for people without sacrificing the environment and see “environmental terrorism” as a way to deal with those who would want to sacrifice the environment for their own well-being, if they won’t listen to reason. Using questionable (or worse) methods against those who put themselves before the Earth is certainly better than telling them that it’s all right to do so!

Actually, this doesn’t apply just to the environment. It applies to every problem caused by humans. First ask them to help. If they won’t, ask them to at least step aside and not hinder you. If they won’t, make them!
Most humans aren’t nice to the planet, aren’t nice to the other species we share it with, aren’t nice to each other and many aren’t even nice to themselves. Why should the few who are fighting for a good, scientifically proven, cause be nice to those who aren’t nice to them or the world? Why should they tickle their egos, make them think they’re more important than they are? Why should the personal interests of those who care for nothing else prevail? Why should greed and selfishness be rewarded?

But to get back to the issue of the environment, the rewards should go towards those who do not worsen the overpopulation problem by having children, who agree to move out of areas where their very presence is harmful to the environment, who would be willing to use seasonal fruits and vegetables for food instead of demanding a constant choice of everything, who reduce their waste, who do not buy things they don’t need, who do not drive polluting vehicles unless it’s an emergency and would do a number of other things to show that they truly care. If the available resources would be focused towards them instead of being wasted on those who put themselves before the world, regardless of which end of the wealth spectrum they’re on, things might have a chance to start moving in the right direction at a reasonable pace before it’s too late… If it’s not too late already…

Since their pockets are one of the many things humans think with when their brains can’t handle the complexity of the process, which is often, a lot of things can be accomplished by using money to generate a response. Humans are just animals, after all. Offer something they greatly desire and they will come to you, and there are few things most people who live in this society desire more than money.
For that reason, such an approach might be advisable, at least in the sense of the ends justifying the means. If those in charge could be convinced that preserving nature could eventually save them more money than they’d need to spend for this purpose, things could happen. In turn, they could use financial incentives to determine corporations to care for the environment, and if those incentives would translate into lower prices for “green” products then consumers would be more inclined to buy them and therefore support environmental responsibility. Not to mention that these incentives could also be applied to people directly, rewarding environmentally friendly behavior and penalizing waste and pollution.

The monetary value of nature is obvious even if you only take health into account. Everyone is hopefully aware that pollution harms humans as much as it harms the environment. Poorer nutrition, which is a result of depleting the natural resources and having to resort to artificial substitutes, is also very harmful. This situation also creates stress and all sorts of mental problems. Plus that modern medicine is more invasive and far more costly than the natural alternatives, which are being depleted along with everything else.
The most obvious result of health problems is a higher reliance on medical services. These services are already expensive and constantly becoming even more so. Because of this, less and less people can afford the care they require. At best, this means that the state must spend increasing amounts of money to offer some sort of medical attention to those who can’t afford it themselves. At worst, it means that people will be left without the medical attention they require.
With the costs of providing medical attention out of the way, let’s focus for a moment on the costs of not doing so. Some illnesses may spread, resulting in even higher costs and/or losses. Sick people are far less productive than healthy people, if they’re productive at all. Caring for them might also reduce the availablity of their friends and relatives, generating an even greater loss of productivity.

But nature provides other, more specific, products and services. Take oxygen for example. Nature provides it for us and we currently can’t generate it for ourselves otherwise. Fresh water is another example. So is trapping carbon dioxide in order to keep the temperature from rising to intolerable levels. We couldn’t survive if nature wouldn’t provide these things for us. If you insist on expressing them in terms of their monetary value, from an anthropocentric viewpoint they are worth however much the survival of the human race is worth.
If that’s not enough, there are also all the animals and plants that many, especially the poor, rely upon. Fishing, hunting, gathering, logging… All of these require healthy ecosystems in order to be possible. Yes, farms could replace nature for a part of these, but not fully and not forever. Farms can’t provide for all, plus that the quality of farmed products tends to drop with time because of the practices used. Sufficient safe havens must exist in order to keep healthy populations of animals and plants away from human expoitation, as that’s the only way to ensure the continued availability of those resources, if that’s how you choose to see them. Exploiting them to extinction, or just to a point from which they wouldn’t be able to fully recover until the next season, will leave a lot of people without the means required for their survival.

Next, let’s take leisure activities into account. Many require nature, or at least the services provided by nature, such as “fresh air”. Most of these don’t require a separate discussion since their lack tends to result in health problems, which have been discussed above, but tourism is different.
Many travel destinations are chosen thanks to the landscape or other natural factors, which means that the number of tourists would be greatly reduced if nature would suffer. (The fact that tourists themselves cause nature to suffer is another matter.) This would cause a lot of economic problems, as some economies rely very heavily on tourism and most others would also suffer if this source of income would vanish. A massive loss of jobs in the hospitality sector alone would be a major blow, considering the fact that right now people need their jobs far more than the other way around and that such jobs are a very popular starting point in many careers. But it wouldn’t stop there, the problems caused by the loss of tourists moving on to also affect other sectors, increasing the losses.

These are just a few very obvious reasons for which preserving nature is desirable even from an anthropocentric and greedy perspective. With such examples, the very structure which is currently destroying the environment could be used against itself. When you try to persuade selfish, violent idiots, which make up the tremendous majority of humans, to do the right thing, you need to take the focus away from nature and move it to them. You need to make them understand that it’ll be the right thing for them, that it’ll serve their own interests, because they just don’t give a fuck about anything else.
Of course, seeing nature in terms of the services it can provide is wrong and potentially dangerous. Such an approach will backfire the moment the means to provide similar services would become available. If people will be taught even by environmentalists to see nature as a provider of services, then they’ll end up caring for it even less and be even harder to convince to continue preserving it once it’ll be no longer absolutely necessary. And in some situations this approach is too wrong to be acceptable even as only a means to an end. But that’s a topic for another time…
For now, this approach could be a workable alternative if handled with great care. It would be better if talks along these lines would be confined to the higher levels. Use this approach when you need to convince governments or corporations and the fair methods have already failed, but don’t bring it all the way down to the average person on the street. Those need to be convinced or, if need be, forced to care for nature for its intrinsic value. Otherwise the magnitude of the disaster will become even greater and environmentalists will have themselves to blame for it.