Social deficiencies in North America in 2009

What I'd like to present here are what years of meticulous social troubleshooting have allowed me to conclude.

When I first started this blog, I was hesitant to post this list because I wasn't sure how it would be received. Two things have changed since then: first, I've moved into a larger investigation where these predictions are only a subset of a larger project; and second, I'm not sure that there are many who bother to read this blog. So I'm not very worried anymore. Also, I dumped my pseudonym.

• Civilization has undermined a primitive motivation for the woman to aggressively pursue her man in order to avoid rape. This balance will need to be re-established. Since legalizing rape is socially abhorrent, the alternative will be for us to evolve a culture where the woman is assumed to be the pursuer;
  
  

• Family solidarity is seriously stressed because children are viewed as the luxury of the parents, and not as a prerequisite to the existence of civilization (and the economy in today’s terms);
  
  

• America, to the south of us, was lumbered by poorly conceived articles of incorporation such that their government is largely paralyzed, and the democratic process has been off-loaded onto their judiciary. The greater problem eclipsing this one, is that those same national documents (American Constitution and Declaration of Independence) have set the individual as the priority over the public good, resulting in a systematic imbalance between individual and social priorities.
  
  Romanticised historic reverence has dogmatically made this imbalance national folklore, though decades of progressive bristling has seen some small progress to re-balance. The most telling indicator of this problem is their high crime statistics, particularly for a western democracy;
  
  

• Public education is not underscored by the primary requirement for an entrepreneurial apprenticeship, which would enable all graduates to know how they’ll eventually fit into the economy, in addition to any passions or interests they may have;
  
  

• The modern western lifestyle has lowered the daily physical energy usage far below what our bodies need to maintain good health;
  
  

• Democratic principles need to trickle down into our smaller associations, most notably our businesses. The labour/management rift is a legacy of last-century rapacious capitalism, which progressive societies have identified as tepidly serving the public good, while engaging huge public assets and infrastructure.
  
  While it is universally understood that the entrepreneur who has birthed a successful commercial enterprise is entitled to the fruits of their work, there needs to be evolved relationships within these smaller institutions that doesn’t demand dissonance within the business;
  
  

• In a manner similar to the social demand made of everyone to serve on a jury at some point in their lives, this requirement will need to be extended to policing as well. We will need to establish what vocations have a socially interactive element to them (like bus driving, company managers, retailers, teachers, etc) and suggest modest police training as a requirement in addition to the primary job.
  
  Also, those people who gravitate towards lawlessness would similarly need to intern as an auxiliary peace officers in order to understand why lawlessness is unlawful. This would be an important part of their community service. This kind of engagement of the public in policing would undermine fears of rising totalitarian state-driven police forces, and would go a long way to reconcile gun ownership, particular in America, Colombia, and other western democracy-aspiring nations with high crime rates due to universal access to firearms.
  
  

This is the short list.

The Problems with the American Social Experiment, Part I

If you read back through this blog, you'll find that I've been wrestling with the peculiarities of America for some time now.

I think I have identified the problems. There are at least two, and they stem from the very creation of America, from the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Feel free to research this event if you're not sure what this was. I suspect that many (most?) Americans know something about this.

The two results of this convention that has had major consequences to American life today are first, the ruling arrangement or 'plan', and second, the Constitution and Declaration themselves. I'd like to look at the Constitution and Declaration first.

The American Constitution and Declaration are a source of great pride to Americans, so much so that they are largely revered and considered flawless, even if Americans wont actually say so. It is a point of pride to announce that in the face of social adversity, Americans seek to defend the Constitution.

But what if there are some manifest 'problems' with the original text, perhaps the original assumptions? From an outsider's perspective, here's a glaring one:

“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” from the Declaration of Independence

and the Second Amendment to the American Constitution, which is typically truncated to the latter half

".. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

While these are actually from different documents, they are central within the American psyche. The problem? Combined, they imply that it is socially acceptable to be greedy at the expense of the social good, and to defend the fruits of that greed with deadly force.

So seemingly, not only has this nation's manifesto declared the individual as the priority over the common good, this assumption has been further entrenched by allowing ready access to a means of defense that would normally be reserved for only those who've demonstrated suitable training and maturity.

It is hard to think of an uglier message to hand the people of a nation.

I fully accept that this is only the most superficial interpretation of these documents, and they also contain many other quotes that should counter this interpretation, however, they don't seem to lend themselves to the same abuse.

Consequently, this 'Constitutionally decreed' freedom to pursue unbridled greed, however shamelessly self-serving, and the subsequent enabling of the deadly means (firearms) to defend the winnings, has set a social tone for Americans that gives rise to the distressingly high level of violence they live with, it would seem.

Religion In Schools

My religious convictions lie somewhere between agnostic and humanism, if these can be viewed as religious convictions.

So then why am I going to make a case for religion in public schools? Because it is the higher quality education for the pre-teen mind, over the conventional religiousless public school.

If we're looking for the biggest bang for the parenting buck, consider what the Catholic school board demands of kids as compared to the public school with the inclusion of a religion class:

First, there is a supreme all-seeing being. For the purposes of raising kids, this is extremely handy. While kids continually test the limits of what they can get away with, there is no getting around the all-seeing supreme being, God. If they don't behave, even when they aren't witnessed by others, the very least they will suffer is the bad karma from the Big Guy (OK, so karma isn't Catholic...)

Second, having God watch is terrific, but we must now introduce what we generically dub 'morality.' These are the rudimentary directives that set important limits on our behaviour. These are ancient laws, most of which are still true today.

Third, religion is an anchor for most cultures. As such, the parables, Bible stories, etc serve as common points, such that a person NOT knowing the story of Christmas, or Noah's Ark for example, in a christian based nation is viewed as backward and clueless. This is true of all religions within the nations they dominate.

Now then, to recap: given the addition of a religious class in public school or no such class, as a parent I can tell you I want my kids to be well-behaved, and if the fear of God helps, that's great. Also, I want them to know more, not less, and I'd prefer that they know the ancient stories in addition to the conventional school curriculum; there's no virtue in ignorance. For that matter, ignorance is very expensive as a rule.

If I can make my 'visionary' suggestion, I'd prefer to see ALL public schools keep religion within the curriculum, though it could evolve well past the Catholic agenda. Public schools could have an ecumenical class that teaches the fundamental points by visiting all religions, and extracting the most fundamental directives (like the Golden Rule) shared by them. As a Canadian who assumes multiculturalism, this would make our kids culturally richer, and I'm certainly for that.

Religion in this school context is a complex of common knowledge, unlike the single disciplines of mathematics, english, etc. I think that instead of trying to separate religion into rudimentary law, sociology, psychology, theatre, etc, the organic origins of religion serves the young mind better.

As the child grows, s/he will learn many more refinements over and above what they had learned in religion class, and it may eventually turn out that God isn't so fearsome. We need to consider far beyond 'an eye for an eye' if our societies are to evolve.

I'd even go further with this concept and introduce another such multidisciplinary course later in high school: since business and economics underpin any job a student may eventually pursue, I'd like to see a course in the later years of high school investigating general entrepreneurship. This would teach kids who may have peculiar interests that they'd like to pursue as a career, how to fit it into the economy, how to get paid for it, and also, what the market will in turn demand of them.

OK, so now let me consider all the multidisciplines that should probably exist in the public school system, in addition to the single disciplines of 'reading, writing, and arithmetic': kids would start with religion, eventually moving into what is now called social studies, then onto rudimentary entrepreneurship. The inclusion of this line of education would give the graduating student a good basis of 'common knowledge' whereby they could thrive on their own.

I'm not sure I could ask more of the school system.

A Wannabe Visionary Philosopher

I have a quest.

For over 30 years I've been on an ongoing investigation of the human condition, and I've been the primary source.

I've kept a journal that has investigated every aspect of my life, and with blunt honesty, I've considered every motivation that has driven me. I alluded to this in my contribution to the wikiHow How to Become a Philosopher.

In the course of this, I've assembled a picture of the world and how it works. Please believe that I've arrived at some startling conclusions.

The problem with the claims I may make is that I have arrived at them by use of inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning, often with the proofs being inferred instead of being explicit. The problem with this is that I can't make a claim, then provide a rock-solid deductive explanation of how it is I come to know it; I can only tell you that it NEEDS to be in such a way, and I'll do my best to convince you.

Why should I be permitted this luxury? If I'm to consider the whole of the human condition, there is NO WAY that I can supply explicit deductive arguments for every new idea. As it is, the mandate to know everything is already ridiculously large for any one person aspiring to be a Visionary Philosopher.

The problem with having a vision of the world is that it's very difficult to get it out of my head, to present to you. There is a mechanism I'm experimenting with, what I'd call Visionary Fiction. Should I have any success with this, the least I can say about it is that it'll be an interesting read, or so I hope.

Welcome to the Hand Basket

Welcome to the Hand Basket

Are there any reasons for hope?

Anyone? Anyone?

I see none at all frankly.

Now that's not to say that unreasoning hope oughtn't to continue but its important to acknowledge the irrationality.

There aren't really any indications that the anthropogenic destabilization of our planet's atmosphere is going to be addressed with anything even remotely like the urgency required.

There are the same number of indications that the christ-deluded western world is thinking rationally in regards to the mohammed-deluded eastern world. Or vice versa.

On the economic front there's no indication that capitalism's market growth model shows any signs of correcting it's gigantic destructive failure.

Welcome to the hand basket.

[I cribbed this from Dana @ The Galloping Beaver]
______________________________________________________

So what's the plan?

Throw up your hands in frustration? Rant and rail on a crowded street? Abandon civilization and move to the mountains?

Where do we start fixing the world?

First, you'll need to turn off the TV or radio, your cell phone, the iPod, and whatever other distractions you use. Furthermore, you can forget about sports, and you'll only be interested in religion insofar as to understand who needs it and why.

Now that your head is reverberant with the silence, you'll need to take seriously every moment of your life; you'll need to study it to learn how it works and why. You are now embarking on living an examined life.

You are seeking this knowledge because eventually you'll question underlying assumptions that may be patently wrong.

Once you have wrestled with such matters, you'll need to consider better solutions, ones that can be workable. You're welcome to assume that you are 'King of the World' as you consider these fixes, but you must also accept that dictating unworkable solutions is a no-go.

In fact, as your maturation continues, you may be able to take on the greatest challenge that we should all consider: Each of us is personally responsible for the mess our world is in, and each of us needs to consider the longest timeline for these fixes we are capable of.

Finally, you should know that for the lifetime of effort this demands, you are not at liberty to demand compliance; the best you can do is to discuss it with others, and where you are right, try to educate those who have never considered their existences beyond today.

Know that it matters, however small your contribution may be.

A New Church

I’d like to propose a structure for a new church, a new religion.

Conventional religious doctrines such as the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Living Word, etc are part of the legacy, but not an active part of what this new fellowship would abide by.

Instead, the followers don’t actually follow, they are also the leaders. Let me explain.

Where a minister, priest, reverend, rabbi, etc normally address the following with a message, in this new church everyone needs to make a contribution to the message. The fellowship agrees to a concern they wish to focus on, then research that concern until they arrive at a conclusion that they all feel is satisfactory.

There will need to be a facilitator, much like a chairman who keeps the fellowship on whatever track is chosen. This person does NOT preach, but follows the progress the fellowship makes on the agreed-to concern. In this way, each church will have a project.

A project can be to understand about how the family unit is supported within a society. If the fellowship has a number of members who have been through the prison system, then perhaps that church project will be to arrive at a conclusion regarding corrections within that society. Another project can look at how mental illness is dealt with.

… in a society. This is central to this church: The fellowship wishes to address concerns about social mechanisms that govern their community, and instead of relying on expensive government studies (Royal Commissions in Canada), they thrash through these concerns themselves.

A church project can be short or long in duration, and should probably be revisited, particularly if previous members return with new experiences to impart, to update a previous conclusion.

Members can also take on Missions (as Missionaries) to study a concern. For example, a mission might be to learn about how the sex trade is dealt with around the world, and to consider the pros and cons of the many ways observed. A person engaged in any such a mission might spearhead this concern, but others would still be required to investigate similarly, though perhaps not to the extent that the missionary had.

What is implied in this church is that everyone needs to serve an active part, however small, in the understandings and the rules of their community. In some small way, other than simply voting, the members need to say something, even if only to describe an experience they have had relating to the focal concern.

This is all socially evolving, and so this might be called the Church of Social Evolution, but I think there may be other negative connotations associated with this, so perhaps I should employ a bit of spin-doctoring: perhaps this church might be called the Church of Voice, since it wishes to bring out the voices of its fellowship. “Please Speak’ might be a holy credo, since so many people usually don’t dare.

Could this church offer solace in the same way God does in other religions? Is there some form of absolution that might comfort the following of this church? Not sure, but when one feels that they have done as much as they possibly can, what is the point in worrying further? When someone makes a genuine contribution to the discussions within his/her Church of Voice, addressing those concerns that affect him/her, they have engaged as much as they can to see a change that may bring benefits to them, even more so than if they were to address their elected representative.

Does Jesus, Muhammad, etc play no part in this church? Certainly they can. What’s more, though the terms of reference my be many centuries apart, many situations encountered back then still can be seen today. In this way, the ancient scriptures can still play a role, but only a partial role. There needs to be fresh consideration for these matters.

And what of God? Is this a Godless religion? Is God worshipped? No, God is not worshipped. Nobody is afforded fawning adulation, least of all a deity assumed to be all-powerful and omnipresent. Only insecure people require fawning adulation. Our Father who art in Heaven would only want to see His children live decent lives in peace; gushing about His greatness seems far too silly, certainly for such all-seeing wisdom.

If He’s not worshipped, is this a Godless religion? No, there’s no need to be Godless. Many people find great solace in God and that shouldn’t be dismissed for a moment. What needs to be remembered is that God as a psychological mechanism allows our minds to decompress, even in trying times.

In a manner similar to simultaneous equations in mathematics, where there is no way to find a solution to any one problem, but given many similar problems, a solution does exist. To find that solution, we need to assume that an answer exists, and we will start with any number, and work toward the correct one.

Metaphorically, God does this for us; He allows us to believe that ultimately all will be well, we need only find out how to get there.

As for Jesus, the love for his fellow man is a message that implicitly demands co-operation and forgiveness, and will never be diminished in importance.

What of God, the moral conscience for those who don’t possess one? Or God as a means to teach the proud to possess humility? Perhaps this new church is for those who already operate with a healthy degree of balance in their lives such that they dare strike out on their own to negotiate the rights and wrongs and the many shades in between.

Our laws already attempt to do this, but too often the law is best administered by lawyers. However, implicit within Law is your co-operation, because you are expected to adhere to those laws, as are you expected to preside over your peers when asked to serve on a jury. Similarly, ignorance of the law is no excuse for law-breaking; laws are supposed to be self-evident, logical. The discoveries made by this Church of Voice will ultimately be reflected within the law as such discoveries are accepted by more people.

Politicians also try to serve you in this way. The government will have committees and sub-committees to address concerns, and usually those committees will hold hearings to get a sense of the public’s concern. Again, this new church does this without the huge expense associated with maintaining large governments. Furthermore, the public could not become disenfranchised from the social mechanisms of government, law, policing, and even corrections, because they’re now a voice in the process.


Will such a church ever exist? No idea. I’ve tried to make a case for why it should. It may be a very fringe lot who adopt such a social mechanism at the outset, but it could gain momentum, if enough people feel comfortable with it.

And now: ‘Please speak.’

The Noises in my Head

I wish I could maintain a worthwhile blog.

I have tons to say, but I'd prefer not to waste your time with anything mundane. I think that if you're going to read MY blog, the least I should do is to offer you something fresh.

OK, so what might that be?

I think that I have a perspective of the world that is unique. It is so because inasmuch as I'm able to do so, I try to view the world in the 'Big Picture' perspective: to consider the events I see around me as symptoms of a history, given specific circumstances.

My most recent investigation has been America, simply because the blogoshere is rife with American concerns. So I've been considering what makes up America.

If you care to click on the Next Blog tab at the top right-hand corner of this page, and rummage through the many blogs, you may note the number of political and military blogs posted by Americans.

If you ask about these posts "What is it of itself" and consider what motivated that person to make that comment, eventually the greater picture that I've been able to glean after looking at many such posts, is that America is a military state.

A significant portion of the American tax dollar goes toward either military associated causes, or directly to the military. Furthermore, it could be argued that the military is America's social assistance program, though there is a chance you may be required to give your life to get some of that benefit.

There are many repercussion anyone can observe that come out of this arrangement; if you're required to tolerate the strict regimen of the military for some portion of your life, you'll only voluntarily accept that if you know that once you've done your duty you'll be largely left alone. This has made Americans very libertarian in their civilian lives.

Also, the freedom to keep and use firearms among the general population, specifically military assault weapons would normally represent a complete failure of a society, however since civilian life can be seen as 'R & R' (rest and recreation) to military life, firearms to this day are viewed as necessary for security, be that personal or national.

The freedoms of civilian life don't end with firearms; remarkably, practically anything of a 'social' nature is denounced as 'socialist', which is only slightly less reviled than 'communist.'

Furthermore, since even the American founding fathers were suspicious of government (see my previous blog), Americans in general don't warm to the co-operative nature of civilization. Often enough, they sneer at the whole concept of working within the law and order, and largely dismiss anything co-operative as 'nanny state.'

From an outsider's perspective, I'd suggest that this arrangement has somewhat arrested social evolution within America, such that while it is the world's superpower, certainly in might, population, and economy, they do not have communities to envy living in: None of their cities make the top dozen.

Another symptom of this arrangement is the bellicose nature of American culture. While a trusted American acquaintance has suggested that this has its roots in the Puritanical origins of America (he'll correct me if I got this wrong), I have more reason to believe this military state arrangement is the reason.

Consider: Regardless of the intellectual capacity of an individual, if he hollers 'Those damned immigrants are ruining this country!' for example, are you going to correct him if he's wearing his service beret and tells you he fought for your freedom? Frankly, you're far more likely to forgive his shortsightedness for the sacrifices he has made on your behalf. I'd suggest that this is the origin of the arrogant presumptuousness that Americans are all too often noted for, however unfairly.

Another problem I have encountered in attempting to discuss socially evolving matters, like urban transit for example, is that Americans often aren't on the same page as you would witness in Europe (or Canada. We have a lot in common with Europe). Who gives a hang about urban transit when we have the car? Oh sure, it pollutes, but so what? Everything pollutes, blah, blah, blah... Too often, serious matters are poopooed for the sake of personal expedience.

If you're an American reading this, please don't take offence: I must emphasize that this is an outsider's perspective, and while I've tried to be as fair and objective as possible, I'll admit that I can be wrong. Please don't hesitate to tell me so, but I'd ask that you might give me some idea why.

Thank you for your patience.