[ View menu ]

This I Believe – III

While the issues I will write about here are more specific than those mentioned in the previous post, dealing only with certain aspects of life, that doesn’t make them less important.

I believe in freedom of religion, as long as you don’t attempt to force your beliefs upon others. That means everybody should be able to follow any religion or none at all and be free to put their beliefs into practice however they see fit, as long as their actions do not affect those who do not share their beliefs and as long as they do not actively try to gain more converts. Saying that, I think I should say a few things about what shouldn’t be done.
Considering children as members of a certain faith before they could make that choice for themselves should be illegal, as should raising them to believe in a certain way. The only right thing to do is to present multiple viewpoints to them, answer questions to the best of your abilities and let them make their own choices when they are ready. For that purpose, rituals that make a small child a member of a certain religion should be outlawed, and before anybody assumes I’m only talking about baptism, I’ll say I’m talking about wiccanings where patron deities are chosen or any other such events just as well. But it’s certainly not about children: Any attempt to convert another to your religion without them asking you to, as well as any open judging of another based on religious views that they don’t share, should be outlawed.
Wearing certain items that state your beliefs should be allowed in all circumstances unless they go against reasonable rules. However, when rules that apply to all forbid the use of such items, nobody should start saying they’re discriminated against when in fact they’re judged exactly like everyone else. For example, a hijab that covers your face is not ok to wear where your identity must be checked, nor is a ritual weapon ok to carry around in places where weapons of its kind are not allowed.
Perhaps most importantly, in order to ensure equality for all, no religion may have a role in state politics. Individual policymakers can, of course, practice their chosen religion like everyone else, but it must not directly interfere with the laws and regulations they pass. There should be no official state religion and no governmental decisions should be justified by the teachings of any one religion. There should also be no government support for strictly religious projects, but also no laws restricting the activities people can do in the name of religion as long as only those who share that belief are affected.

I believe people don’t all need to be social creatures, at least not in the way the term is currently understood. I’m seeing all sorts of advice everywhere at the start of every school year about how it’s normal for some children to be unwilling to be part of the community school forces them into but listing methods to make them adapt to it nevertheless. If it’s normal, why must they reject their own normality and substitute it with another?
If many people like being around others, interacting with others and so on, good for them, but what about those who don’t? Or what about the times when a person that usually desires social interaction would simply rather be left alone? Shouldn’t there be a way to have a life without the need for direct interaction?
We have the Internet to communicate with each other, and I see nothing wrong in using it. There is no problem with talking on-line, shopping on-line, playing on-line or any other such things! Besides, it allows you to interact with many more people than you could otherwise, eliminating distances. So, no, people shouldn’t be herded towards interacting with each other in person simply because somebody assumed at some point that it’s the most desirable means of interaction in all situations. That assumption was quite logical at that point, since these other means weren’t yet available, but things change. And it’s rare that they change for the better, so let’s not pass up such an opportunity!
I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather live in a world where people would only meet other people that they wish to meet and be able to get everything done from home. Tense situations and unpleasant moments can often be better managed in front of a computer screen, away from distractions and safe from potential violent outbursts. Not to mention that getting rid of the need to travel to and from school or work each day would save time, reduce stress, clear the traffic and improve the environment, as well as give people who work better alone the chance to make the most of their potential. And all of that translates into having more time to spend with your friends and loved ones in person and being in a better mood when you do so…

I believe school should allow each child to develop the abilities they choose to develop, not treat them all the same. I also think homeschooling should be far more widespread. In fact, I think there should be an option to have no formal education of any kind, just needing to take some tests to prove you have certain basic knowledge that everybody should have. Past that, each should choose the subjects they’re interested in and their preferred method of study.
There are a lot of things a person can be good at, and that should be reflected in their studies. I don’t agree with the idea I keep hearing from education officials, that the purpose of the educational system is to offer everyone an average level of understanding in all the fields that are considered to be important and some additional help in the direction of their choice, leaving further development to happen on the person’s own time. For one, there are plenty of fields that are presently considered to be important that really aren’t, and others that are but aren’t given enough attention, or even none at all. And then, I think each person should focus on what they’re interested in, not need to waste their time on things they’ll most likely never need!
There are actually a lot of things I’d say about the educational system, but I’ll leave those for another time. What I need to mention here now is that nobody should judge another by their level of formal education. Having a piece of paper saying what you should know how to do shouldn’t offer you any advantage and not having it shouldn’t be a disadvantage. What should be taken into account is only what you really know and what you’re actually able to do in the given situation, and that’s something the current educational system doesn’t prepare people for anyway, seeing as it usually focuses on theory over practice.
And there’s one last thing I’ll say here. The educational system should try to encourage creativity in all areas, while right now its purpose seems to be to erase any trace of it. It should encourage people to look at things from new perspectives, imagine potential new developments, try new things! I read a quote a while ago: “An inventor is a person that didn’t take their teachers too seriously.” That should change! Teachers should do everything they can to create thinkers, inventors, idealists and reformists, encourage their students to take the world forward, solve problems, create new things, see things that others haven’t noticed before…

I believe people shouldn’t need to work all the time to support themselves, and that the world actually doesn’t need everybody to work, as the unemployment rates prove. But keep in mind that these unemployment rates exist despite efforts to always create new jobs, which actually reduce productivity and make everyone earn less. Not to mention that developments in robotics could drastically reduce the need for humans to work in many sectors.
I know we could come up with a job rotation system where people would earn enough to live the whole year, if they’re reasonably careful with their expenses, by working, say, four months. Perhaps it could be even better than that, but I was just giving an example. Imagine having eight months of vacation instead of one. Wouldn’t everybody be happier?
It can be done. We only need to first implement as many automatic systems as possible, keeping human supervisors for all, of course, and then reduce the number of jobs available for humans to only what’s absolutely necessary. That way we would have the best productivity with the lowest number of workers, thus the companies will be able to pay each of their workers way more than they currently do, therefore allowing said workers to have a reasonable standard of living without working all the time. Of course there are a lot of specifics, but I won’t talk at length about it here.
There should also be a limit on the time any person can spend doing work-related activities, not only on the actual working hours. That should include the time actually spent at work plus any breaks where you can’t do anything you please for various reasons, any time spent on the road while going to work and getting back, any time spent doing work-related activities at home and so on. I think this is absolutely necessary in order to reduce stress levels, and I’d set said limit at 50 hours per week split among at most five days.

I believe there shouldn’t be censorship and that nobody should be responsible for being a role model to others. Remember what I said about each being fully responsible for their own actions. If a person plays a violent game or watches a violent movie and then goes on a killing spree, the producers are not to blame. If a person learns that their favorite singer uses drugs and destroys themselves by doing the same, it’s not the singer’s fault. See where I’m going with this?
Considering that, I think there should be no restrictions on what kind of content can be shown, used or sold, though warning labels are a good idea. Warn people about the contents of the “package”, whether it is a music album, computer game, TV show or anything else, and let them make their own choice. I also think parents shouldn’t restrict their children’s right to watch, play or listen a certain thing, but instead be there to explain everything to them and ensure that they know what is reality and what is not.
To a reasonably sane person with a decent sense of morality, a violent game can be a good way to release anger in a safe manner, thus not ending up breaking items or actually attacking another. That same person may take a song with violent lyrics as proof that somebody else understands what they’re going through, grounding them and helping them focus on finding a solution. And that same person will see a star’s drug use as nothing other than that star’s personal choice, then make their own choice on the matter after analyzing the facts for themselves.
These are of course only a few examples, but I think I made my point clear enough. Entertainment is just that, entertainment. If somebody takes it as being something else, the entertainer is not responsible. And any person’s personal life is their own, so they are free to live it as they wish and they shouldn’t be told to think of those that might take them as role models.

I could talk about what I believe for a long time, but I think these 12 things are enough for now, so I’ll end this series of posts here. Remember that this was just a brief overview of each and that many details were left unsaid.

Written by Cavalary on October 29, 2007 at 11:58 PM in Society | 0 Comments

This I Believe – II

While the three topics I covered in the first part are clearly my top concerns, ranking becomes difficult further down the list. I have actually tried to rank the issues I’ll write about in this post according to how important I feel each is, but after changing them around several times I had to give up. They’re all below the top three, but that’s as far as I can go with the ranking. They’re not even above all of those I’ll write about in part three.

I believe in full personal freedom as long as you don’t cause unjustified harm to another and that democracy is no better than dictatorship if you’re in the minority. And everybody is in one minority or another, at one time or another. Nobody should choose for anybody else, and people shouldn’t be protected from themselves.
I think people have an unquestionable right to do whatever they wish with their bodies and their lives. This also includes the right to die, and there should be clinics where one can go and ask to be put to sleep if they wish it but can’t do it themselves. Nothing is wrong as long as all those involved fully agree to it, knowing what “it” is. Keeping yourself in a drunken stupor is ok, going out in public in that state and aggravating everyone around is not. Using hard drugs yourself is ok, slipping some in the drink of that hot chick who wouldn’t give in to your advances is not. Ending your sick friend’s suffering when he or she asks you to is ok, cutting the life support of a hospital patient who wants to fight to the end is not. Practicing a religion that strips away your dignity is ok, forcing your child to do the same is not. Starting a relationship with somebody you just met is ok, ending the one you are in while your partner is still madly in love with you is not. See where I’m going with this?
Harming another who doesn’t deserve it should be avoided and, when it can’t be avoided, you should go back at the first opportunity and heal the wounds you have caused. But when somebody harms you or someone you care about without just cause, they fully deserve to have something similar happen to them and often you’ll find that karma needs a helping hand, so why not be that hand yourself? And there’s one more situation when harm is justified: When it is the only way to prevent a significantly greater harm from happening.
Of course, these rights also come with responsibilities. Each is fully responsible for their actions, even when somebody else was holding a gun to their head. If somebody tells you to kill another or they’ll kill you and you do as they ask, you weren’t forced to do it, you chose to do it because you considered your life to be more important than that of your victim, and the only question is whether or not you were right in assuming that. Same goes for alcoholics or drug addicts, for example. Good for them if they want to quit, but they have no right to ask the government to provide facilities for them out of taxpayers’ money.
Sure, many can’t choose the right thing and will go down, but the world certainly doesn’t need everyone! It’s not right to restrict because, while most certainly do some things because they don’t fully understand the risks, some do the same things just because they understand the risks all too well. You alone can know what’s right for you. If you don’t, it’s your problem.

I believe age has nothing to do with a person’s maturity. No fairy will whack you over the head with a wand when you turn 16, 18 or 21 and suddenly grant you all the wisdom you had so far lacked! There are some who can make very mature decisions at 13 and many who can’t make them even at 30. That said, I think there should be “adulthood tests” to determine each person’s maturity level and all rights and responsibilities should be given according to their results. Gave a great deal of thought to this matter, but now I’ll try to sum it up in a few paragraphs.
I’m thinking there should be three tests: The first to determine if you’re aware of the consequences your actions may have on yourself, the second focusing on the way you affect those around you and the last dealing with your impact on the whole world. There could be two options for the last test, a simpler one that everyone will be required to pass in order to be considered fully an adult and a more complex one which will only be required in order to be eligible for a position of authority.
This next part will seem very harsh, but we simply don’t need people who are a danger to the others, so here goes: Each person has the right to try each test three times until they reach a certain age. If they either fail all three attempts or reach the maximum age without having passed the test, whichever comes first, they will be sent to self-sufficient reeducation camps where all efforts will be made to make them see all the possible consequences of their actions and take them into account before deciding. Once there, they will need to find ways to support themselves and the staff, keeping what they need out of what they produce and sending the rest to be traded in exchange for goods and services they can’t provide themselves, so the taxpayers won’t need to support them. Anybody sent to such a camp will have the right to retake the test they have failed once every two years, a right which they can choose not to use if they don’t feel ready. However, each will only get five total attempts to pass all the remaining tests, and if they fail all of them they’ll have to spend the rest of their lives in the camps.
Another way to get sent to such a camp is proving you cheated on the test. The tests try to determine how you think, but they might be fooled if you’re on your best behavior during the testing process and if you have studied as much as possible for the areas where there are right or wrong answers. However, life can’t be fooled. So, while everyone deserves a second chance and most even a third, those who will repeatedly cause unjustified and avoidable harm to others or to the world as a whole, will not do their best to fix any damage they couldn’t avoid causing or will simply prove to be acting without fully understanding what it is they’re doing, will have their “adulthood ranks” removed and end up sent to the camps as if they would have failed the tests, then being treated as any other person there. (The violent or vicious ones could be kept separate, however.) Exactly which test they’ll need to retake first depends on what they did to be sent there in the first place.
Age could have a role in determining who can take the test and when, but people should be allowed to try earlier if they feel up to it. At least one year must pass between two attempts, though there could be two testing periods each year. I’m thinking the age range for the first test should be 12-17, for the second it should be 13-20 and for the third it should be 15-25. At the end of the range, anybody who hasn’t passed the respective test ends up in a camp. However, as I said, each should be allowed to try taking each test once even before the start of the range. There could even be some advantages if they try this and succeed, but there will also be penalties if they try it and fail: They will need to wait one more year after the start of the normal age range in order to try again, so a person trying to take the first test at the age of 10 and failing will only be able to try again at the age of 13.
Don’t care if it seems harsh, that’s just how I see it. And I’m sure the camps will see no shortage of people for a long time, but someday if this will be kept going properly there will start to be less and less need for them and the world will be better and better.

I believe people are not all equal and that affirmative action is just as bad as discrimination. Of course race, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, gender and so on don’t matter, but memory, logic, strength, speed, resistance to disease and so on do!
Everyone should be evaluated by taking into account all the abilities that concern the position they are being evaluated for and ignoring all those that do not. It’s equally immoral to deny somebody a position because of their race (for example) as it is to award it to them for it. It is also very wrong to offer somebody a position simply because they wouldn’t fit in anywhere else when another person would be more suited for it. Doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it by granting a person more or less chances, you’re setting them apart either way and that’s a bad thing.
Affirmative action actually fuels discrimination when the members of the majority group see that minorities obtain positions despite ranking lower than some of them who were denied those positions. Plus that, knowing they have certain “reserved” positions, members of minority groups might underachieve despite having all the necessary abilities to be among the best. Or, of course, it could be that there are less positions reserved for a certain minority group than members of said minority who would have obtained one if they’d have not been judged separately. Instead of being a solution, it only worsens the problem. Actually, the simple idea that all should find a place for themselves only worsens the problem. When people see some being chosen, or not chosen, for certain positions for reasons other than their actual merits, they tend to lash out. Besides, putting someone in a certain position when someone else would be better suited for it only hurts everybody in the long run.
What I’m saying here would also apply really well to nepotism, accepting bribes and so on, wouldn’t it? Well, it’s pretty much the same thing. Different causes, but the same effect. So how about we stop creating new problems and focus on fixing the existing ones, making these irrelevant differences less visible instead of putting the spotlight on them? And, in doing so, let’s also start focusing on the differences that do matter, letting people be where they can do the most good!

I believe the state’s duty is to provide opportunity, not charity. We should wean people off the government’s teat and teach them to take care of themselves. That will only make them more responsible and will improve both their lives and the lives of those around them.
Instead of increasing taxes in order to provide social security, how about lowering them so people will have more of their own money available to them and be able to secure their own future with investments and deposits? Instead of pushing companies towards creating more job openings, how about making it easier for people to go into business themselves and become self-employed? Instead of giving money to the poor, how about helping them learn crafts and skills that would help them stay out of poverty in the long run? See where I’m going with this?
And there are also other things. For example, the state shouldn’t offer compensation to those who were uninsured when they lost their homes to a fire or a natural disaster, but should instead regulate the insurance industry so all those who were insured when such a tragedy happened will be compensated in full and able to rebuild their lives. Another example would be that the state shouldn’t offer retirement benefits, shouldn’t even require people to choose a private retirement fund to invest in, but should instead regulate investment funds to ensure that those who choose to invest in one will get their money’s worth when the time comes while at the same time allowing those who choose other methods to do as they please, including not saving anything if they don’t plan on reaching the age of retirement.
This actually ties in quite well with the first issue I wrote about in this post, freedom and responsibility. If you should be allowed to do whatever you want with your life and then be held accountable for it, that freedom and responsibility should refer to all aspects of your life. The state’s duty should be to make sure the stairs you’re climbing are in good condition, that there will always be one more step to climb if you have what it takes to climb it and also other stairs around you if you want to choose a new path. The state’s duty is at the same time to protect you from those who wish to push you off, but it shouldn’t hold your hand so you won’t stumble and fall on your own, nor should it put cushions at the bottom in case you do!
I would just set one limit here, a maximum amount of money a person can keep or spend for themselves. It would be a really high limit, so extremely few will be affected by it, but I think it’ll help fight against corporate greed by making them either distribute more income to their employees or invest their excess profits into projects that benefit all. Otherwise, encourage development, new ideas, creativity and thinking outside the box. Help the best become even better and give those who want to try something different a chance, since without trying something different you can never find a better solution. Treat everyone fairly and let them choose whatever path they wish in order to be the best they can be. Then let them either enjoy their success or wallow in their misery, depending on exactly what their “best” is.

That’s it for now… I know some things weren’t exactly clear, but it’s the best I can do, especially considering my current mental state. As last time, more will follow if I’ll still be around long enough…

Written by Cavalary on October 18, 2007 at 11:36 PM in Society | 0 Comments

This I Believe – I

Some time ago I stumbled upon This I Believe and spent a few days racking my brains to figure out what I could submit but didn’t come up with anything. Needing to write about a single thing made the choice next to impossible and the ridiculously low word limit ensured there was no way I could get anything across that wouldn’t seem shallow even if I could choose. Plus that needing to write about one event that illustrates your belief, and in so few words too, is just silly. I read some of the featured essays and the best they got out of me was an amused grin. So I’ve been meaning for a while to write a post where I’m simply listing my beliefs, the way I think the world should be like, and now here it is. Or here is the first part of it, since there’s a lot to say even if I’ll only outline each.

I believe Earth is terribly overpopulated. The very fact that there are 6.7 billion people on this planet is frightening in itself, even without looking around and seeing what all those people are doing to themselves, to each other, to all the other creatures that they share this planet with and to the planet itself.
I trust the studies showing that this planet can hold at most three billion people in decent conditions and while also leaving enough room for other creatures and that we only need about two billion to efficiently exploit all of it. I also think we don’t need to exploit all of it, so being less than two billion would certainly be no problem. At times I even find the appeal of the idea described in “Adiamante“, less than ten million people split among several completely self-contained cities around the world, but I’ll usually agree that such a thing would be taking it too far. Let’s get under 2.5 billion first and then we’ll see.
To achieve that, I think draconian eugenics laws should be passed and enforced everywhere, initially forbidding at least 90% of people from ever having children, though that percentage will drop as the population drops. Also that not even most of those who would be allowed to have children should receive any aid in raising them, but should be held accountable for the slightest slip from their parental duties, so people will see having children as a chore as much as possible, not as a joy. None but those who have absolutely extraordinary qualities to pass on should be encouraged to have any children or helped in raising them.
I also think “right to die” laws should be passed, so anybody will be able to go to a clinic and ask to be put to sleep for any reason, or even no reason at all. In addition to that, medical research should focus on improving the existing life instead of extending it. Don’t know about you, but I for one would much rather live 50 or 60 good years and then just drop dead than 80 or even 100 but start struggling with health problems around 30 or 40. This would also take care of the aging population problem, as people who are alive, regardless of age, will generally be active.

I believe love should be allowed to conquer everything and that relationships must be the top priority for everyone. Doing anything that might jeopardize your relationship, like moving for a new job or school when your partner can’t come with you, shouldn’t even be considered. Of course, as long as everyone involved knows and fully accepts the situation, I can accept temporary relationships and relationships based solely on sex and can even sometimes tolerate the relationships that are basically described as an exchange of sexual favors for money (those where one is very rich and the other is very good looking, especially when there is a noticeable age difference between them), but those are not the ones I’m talking about.
I think that any relationship that is not clearly defined and fully agreed upon from the very start as being something else should be understood as being for life, though not necessarily monogamous, excepting extreme situations. And by “extreme situations” I understand repeated physical or severe emotional abuse, forcing the other into criminal activities that they don’t approve of, severe substance addiction without even the desire to quit and a couple of other such things, all of which are crimes in themselves, of course.
I also think that, while break-ups on common agreement should of course be permitted, there should be severe penalties for those breaking up with their partners over anything except the above-mentioned extreme situations while their partners still want to be in that relationship, and also for those who start purposefully treating their partners badly in order to make them want to break up as well. Granted, the punishment would serve little to no purpose after the harm has already been done and nobody wants to see the person they love hurt even after that person hurt them, but this might make people reconsider when they start thinking about breaking up. Starting a relationship should imply a full-time commitment to making it work, no matter what. “I make you happy and you make me happy. I don’t worry about myself as long as you do and you don’t worry about yourself as long as I do.”
To make this achievable, seeing as nobody is or could ever be perfect for another, I firmly support polyamory. Though the term can also be applied to open relationships, I’m talking about solid, trusting, committed relationships involving more than two people. I can’t understand jealousy or the need many people have to feel that they are all that their partner needs, when obviously their partner isn’t all that they need. If you can find a way for all to have all of their needs met, why not use it? And if somebody truly loves you and you can grow to at least somewhat care for, or at least about, them, why not have some sort of relationship with them alongside that with the partner(s) of your choice, making everyone happy?
And I should also note that, despite everything, the best way, and possibly the only way, of making a relationship stay happy over many years is not to expect it to be. If you expect only good times you’ll make the bad times even worse than they are and reduce the chances of solving the problems that caused them. After a while, a good relationship turns into a comfortable routine, emphasis on “comfortable”, with a balance of good and bad moments that break said routine, and that’s exactly what you should expect it to be. If the good moments noticeably outnumber the bad then it’s absolutely fabulous, but you should be careful not to get used to it and end up running away at the first sign of trouble afterwards.

I believe the environment should concern us all and that economic and even social interests should be swept away when they go against what’s best for Earth. We’d have nothing without Earth and we should act like we know that! Business should be tightly regulated not according to social concerns or economic principles, but in order to preserve the environment. If something can’t be done in a way that doesn’t harm the environment more than its normal rate of regeneration can heal, then it shouldn’t be done. If prices or taxes need to be raised in order to come up with less harmful products and practices, then they should be raised. If people will need to end up unemployed because a polluting factory will be shut down, then they should end up unemployed.
I think humans should never put themselves above the world. We’ve harmed it long enough, how about starting to fix it for a change? Personal interests and even whole settlements should be sacrificed if they stand in the way of real environmental preservation plans. Move those who accept to move, jail those who don’t, it’s that simple. You can even justify this from that same rotten perspective that puts humans above all things: We all benefit from the environment, so isn’t the good of all worth the sacrifice of a few?
Public transportation should be improved and encouraged on all levels. Once that is achieved, personal cars should be phased out and any measures are fair for that purpose. I’m thinking that having certain areas where the only motorized vehicles permitted are those that are part of the public transportation system and basically ensuring gridlocks and lack of parking spaces for those who insist on taking their cars on other routes would work, despite protests. I also think new roads or railways shouldn’t be built unless absolutely necessary, and even then they should be underground as much as possible.
Presently undeveloped areas should stay undeveloped, and as many presently developed areas as possible should return to Nature. I firmly believe that at the very least 25% of both the waters and the land surface of Earth, chosen from the best areas, most suited for all the plants and animals that live in them, should be off-limits for humans except for research purposes and perhaps a little tightly controlled tourism. Drastically reducing the human population would go a long way towards achieving that, since right now we’re overcrowding each other’s personal space as it is and many don’t even have access to the basic necessities.
I think taxes should be used to encourage environmentally-friendly products and discourage the environmentally-harmful ones. It’s easy, put taxes according to how much a product harms the environment and use those money to fund research for “greener” alternatives, or even as direct subsidies for cleaner products. Organic foods are a great example as to where that should happen. Sure, conventionally grown foods are affordable, genetically modified ones might be even more so, but what is their true cost? How much is the health of the planet worth? Actually, how much is your own health worth?

I think the top three are enough for now, I’ll continue at some other time… Maybe… If I’ll still be around…

Written by Cavalary on October 12, 2007 at 6:59 PM in Society | 0 Comments