Who will survive?

The worlds population is growing out of control and consuming more and more energy which is destroying the planet. Unless much more is done we will eventually reach a point where nature will take its course and only the fittest (if any) will survive - who will they be? 

A physical example: People have been able to survive illnesses like thyroid problems because of medication. If societies collapse then no more medication will be made leaving the 'weak' to die slow painful deaths or avoid that fate by taking their own lives.

What Kind of Mind are You?

Scenting

In her TED talk (link below), Temple Grandin talks about how we all have something different to contribute to society. So naturally I began to think about what it is that I contribute.

I like to draw and play music and learn about things and understand them. You could call it putting things into boxes and you would probably be right on the money.

(Is there anything wrong with doing that?)

I realise that I won’t be able to develop new scientific technology or cure things like cancer; but what I can do is allow the world that I experience to be filtered through me and all of my experience so that when it comes out it is in the form of insight that can have some prevalence in the lives of others.

What do you have to contribute to this world?

http://www.ted.com/talks/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds.html

Why are you kind to strangers?

Throughout most of our history as humans on this planet we have lived in small groups. There was no knowledge of the wider world, yet alone the vastness of the Universe.

If our brains have evolved to deal with such a small world then is it any surprise that this sudden (in evolutionary terms) expansion of our awareness of things has left us feeling a little shell-shocked?

What if our brains just can’t cope with the world on that scale?

Could mental illness be a consequence of that inability to cope?

Are things getting out of control?

The answer to our questions

Can you judge a person? If everyone is a victim of their circumstances can anyone be guilty? If there's no such thing as choice I mean. Say someone commits murder, that so called crime is merely the end result of that person's entire history. They did not make a choice as a subjective being, like everyone else they were shaped and the shape that they were was the one that committed murder.

Like a child they get punished by law so that hopefully they won't do it again. They are that shape and that is a hard thing to change so perhaps murdering again is unavoidable, hence life imprisonment is the answer.

But that doesn't mean they can be blamed. The families of the victims will nevertheless blame the murderer. They'll think that he or she is a bad person but the injustice isn't down to the offender; it is the way that the world is that is the problem.

Inequality, corruption, greed, etc are big problems. Our nature gets the better of us when we live in a perverse world like this one. People need help to find a solution because the problem is an unnatural one.

If we learn about how our natures work and interact with our current environment instead of winging it, we will find the answer.

Each to their own (I'm right)

We all have different views on different things; but what if everything is reducible to scientific measurement? Things like morality; what if the only law is selfishness bound by a network of systems of control?

Wouldn’t that change things significantly?

I hear a lot about the big questions, for example: why are we here? Somehow it is assumed that there must be some great meaning behind the fact that we are living, thinking beings – I mean there must be!

But what if there isn’t a ‘great’ greater meaning? What if all of these questions have a surprisingly simple answer? What if I am a collection of organic material that is functioning under universal laws – just like a robot does?

Someone has to be right and someone else wrong at the end of the day; there is no room for ambiguity. If, as Richard Dawkins says, morality is inbuilt into us as selfishness (for example the achievement of social status through altruistic behaviour) then can every question be boiled down to the measurable science of nature?

The extinction of humanity

Have you ever questioned whether there's a difference between the killing of one rhino and that of the chicken you just ate?

Both are individuals with their own lives like you or me and they have each gone extinct as a single being. It doesn't matter to you whether the species survives if you're the individual animal, right?

We talk about stopping a species from going extinct but because there are plenty of chickens it somehow becomes ok to kill individuals (so long as you only kill a proportion of them). 

Isn't it interesting the way people's minds work? They seem to see a species of animal as an entire entity and they fear the disappearance of that entity. But for the individual animal all it really has at the end of the day is it's own life.

Interestingly, since humans are animals do the same standards not apply to us? There are plenty of us on the planet so does it matter if a number of people are killed (so long as it's only a small proportion)?

The malignant melanoma of our world

It’s very morbid but they say death is a natural part of life. I don’t see anything wrong with contemplating one’s own mortality. I learnt recently that getting sunburnt even once before your mid-teens can double your chances of developing skin cancer. Most of our holidays to Spain during my childhood generally followed the same pattern; we’d get horribly sunburnt on the first day and then spend the remainder of the holiday inside in a rather large amount of pain so god only knows what my chances are of developing skin cancer!

Of course you could die at any time but you don’t think that way do you? Even when confronted by Damien Hirst’s shark preserved in formaldehyde all I saw was a freak show. I then learnt its actual title was ‘The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living’, not a bad title.

One of my chief thoughts when I’m writing things down (which I do often and it seems to keep me sane) is, following my death, what would my fiancée think when she reads the many journals and iPhone notes I am continuingly compiling? I’d like to add that I don’t foresee my death any time soon.

When I was younger and I was making drawings I used to be surrounded by a cloud of voices. They would often praise me, which was nice but as my disability developed they became more hostile and distressing until I finally shut down my thinking all together in order to avoid them.

Now, though, I am beginning to access my thinking more and more. Could it be the medication I am taking that enables me to do so? I don’t know.

But back to the topic; say I do develop malignant melanoma and it’s so aggressive that there is nothing that I can do and I am dead within weeks. What would be left? I don’t believe in an afterlife in any shape or form; I’m not sure I even believe in me; instead I see myself as a collection of thoughts which themselves are merely electricity passing through an organic machine.

I heard the word ‘Legacy’ yesterday whilst watching a film called Sinister and it certainly struck a chord. It reminded me of how Henri Matisse professed his love of art over that of his wife. I am an artist and have often mused upon this topic.

What it comes down to is that I am an animal (not in the sexually provocative sense of course). I am a part of nature not separate from it. What matters fundamentally is the reproduction of my genes. This doesn’t mean I can’t love my fiancée but what it does mean is that love is an evolutionary function that has come about in order to produce this effect.

I look into her eyes and it makes me feel all warm and fluffy inside. Why is this? Is “because you’re in love” enough of an explanation? I feel that way so why question it? Why do you need a deeper meaning?

One day we hope to have children of our own. That, Sinister vocalised for me, is my legacy. My fiancée tells me to focus on my own life and not worry about the lives of others so much. I can understand how that is a very natural way to be. We evolved to live in small groups and now we live in a world populated by over 6 billion people. I am told that this change happened so fast that our primeval brains weren’t able to keep up.

But that is the reality we live in. I have this idea that the world is broken – or rather it is like a lie that has grown out of control by continual propagation over the ages. Am I right? I sit here in my living room listening to Radio 3 and looking out of the double glazed windows at a manicured lawn and what I see is suffering.

Do I want my legacy to be selfishness at standing by while people suffer? “You can’t change it so don’t bother”, “Why not go and work in Africa building wells then?” I am asked. Maybe I am being selfish by not taking action personally. I tell myself “you are doing what you can, don’t kick yourself, you have schizophrenia”.

Wouldn’t it be perverse if it was my schizophrenia that has given me the ability to take the necessary steps back from the big picture and question why there is so much suffering?

How would I feel if I had to forego certain luxuries in my life so that people around the globe could have more of them?

I meet artists who are so consumed with expression and capturing beauty that they don’t seem to notice the world around them. As I say I think that this is the natural way to be (or perhaps I am being presumptuous and they are actually doing everything in their power to help put an end to suffering).

‘During the war, it was suggested to (Winston Churchill) that funding (for the arts) should be cut in order to pay for munitions. “Then what are we fighting for?” he replied’ – exert from a newspaper article (I can’t remember which).

You call this civilised? What kind of civilisation allows such suffering?

I know that I am being naïve. People can’t just click their fingers and change the world. I do wonder if religion has a big hand in the problem though. I have a feeling that if the religious amongst us (and bearing in mind that celebrity and art and money amongst other things can be religions) were to realise that they are animals - genetically designed and environmentally moulded animals - then the world would be a better place.

This isn’t an excuse for them to sub cede to their natural instincts of greed and violence. It would reframe the question of what it means to be human being in a lot of people’s minds though. Morality is inbuilt through various mechanisms into our biology.

Maybe punishing someone because of their actions isn’t justified as nobody has any choice in the past that has shaped the decisions that they make and instead people should be punished when they go against their natural moral mechanisms.

The world looks pretty fucked up from where I’m standing. But maybe people just need the opportunity to understand.