Solitude and the Allure of Insanity.

IS THIS ENTRY ABOUT MY RECENT SHRINKAGE AND OUTCAST FROM MY FAMILY THAT CAUSED ME TO FIND REFUGE UNDER A VIOLIN, ON A DISK IN THE MIDDLE OF A WHITE VOID, NEXT TO A SAD ROCK!? READ ON AND FIND OUT!

Every now and then, and by every now and then I actually mean rather regularly, I get very strong feelings of longing to be alone, way out in the middle of nowhere with nothing but my thoughts.

"Into the Wild" is one of my favourite films and I wish I could grow a beard. A month of travel around Europe with the lack of a singular home and hours of train journeys, it turns out, was right up my street. Though despite the feelings that well up in my chest, making me think my heart will explode out of my ribcage, wearing a backpack, wrestling a bear and spouting proverbs in a gravelly voice that denote wisdom beyond his years, like a true mountain man, I decided to recently spend my money on a cello instead of a yurt. Why, if part of me thinks solitude is the bomb diggity?

No matter how hard I try and use the mental image of the mature steel faced Lady Science to bring rationality to my feelings it is very hard to not be a little distracted by the more flirtatious, younger and perhaps a little bit tipsy mistress of romanticism. For me, living the life of a hermit is the same thing as serving in WWI for the glory of your nation was for dudes of my age almost 100 years ago. Instead of a boy being baptised into manhood by war, hermatism has me imagining a sage, more mature version of myself, treating silent epiphanies about the universe as sustenance and animal skins as insulation so as not to give anyone awesome-burns if they came too close... okay, so perhaps not that extreme but you get my point.

Realistically, I am embarrassed to acknowledge that I think of solitude as being the panacea to my list of obnoxious, self-diagnosed problems. Given the wide open road and no pressurising factors apart from my drive to survive and be as hedonistic as said survival will allow, surely I will overcome my laziness and my self-doubt and with the absence of social anxiety I can truly play around in my own head. These are inspired by stories of Isaac Newton going into isolation and emerging with calculus, the theory of gravitation, binomial theorem and the field of optics under his belt. (I should add that it wasn't all done in one stint.) Throughout history you see the reverence of isolation amongst scholars and academics and musicians. Perhaps a questionable example but Van Gogh is amongst their ranks along with many Greek philosophers, Renaissance artists AND MOOORE.

Yeah, so I totally forgot where I was going with this but would living out my romantic dream of being a mountain man make me happy? No. It would make me dead. Really dead. I only own shorts, I forget to eat when food is in abundance, I have the very real worry of being a bit mentally unstable in the absence of social glue (as much as that truly pains me to admit. How dare I share a trait of humanity?) and most importantly I can't grow a beard... Yet, I will not throw such romanticism out with other childish ideas such as "hard work will always result in proportional reward" and other favourites, such as "If you try you can do or be anything you want.". It's fun to imagine and pretend sometimes and anyone that feels disengaged from that statement has obviously not dressed up as a super hero lately, or built a pillow fort.

TL;DR: Be true to your inner child because who knows where it may lead to. WEAR CAPES AND MAKE INFRASTRUCTURE FROM STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL!

World Peace: Achievable in Our Planet's Lifetime.

Been thinking about world peace and that. Here is my thought out method of ENFORCING PEACE!!1!!

1) Get rid of nationalism.

Call me a commie (LOOKIN' AT CHU 'MERIKUH!) but one's country is nothing to be proud of. A country is a geographical space, there's plenty of geographical space about. You may say the government and mentality of a country is what makes it better than another but I would say that there is not one country that is statistically, consistently better than every other nation on Earth.

E.g. You may be American and you may think your country is great because you have the most powerful military in the world but the GPI (Global Peace Index- a measure of safety in a country) places your country as the 88th safest country in the world. Right, so why not go to Iceland? They've been number one in the GPI table two years in a row (after a shocking fall to #2 in 2009), they're world leaders in handball and are pioneers of geothermal energy. Well I'll tell you why, it's a barren island made from volcanic rock, it's likely you don't speak the language and they hunt a lot of whales. Each country has perks and cons. The only thing nationalism serves is the primitive human idea of needing enemies in order to unite a people.

Nationalism can be greatly depreciated through both education and travel. Instead of children being taught that their country is great through pledges and national mottos (I know I'm really pedalling this one but check out America for more.) they would instead be taught to think of themselves as equals with other nations. Perhaps citizenship tests could be part of mainstream education but not with the test being an attempt to get someone to memorise everything their country is great for. For example a UK one may go as follows:

"1. What are the first 4 lines of "God Save the Queen?"
 2. State the nationality of the inventor of the telephone.
 3. What is the estimated number of murders caused by    
     British brutality to the Indian people during the period
     of colonisation carried out by the British Empire?"

Y'know, make people aware that what their land is referred to as doesn't give it the power to do the things it does but instead it is the efforts of individuals acting alone and in groups, motivated by personal objectives, inside that country that do those things. To be truly new age about it; great and awful things happen because men do them, not men bestowed power by the prefix of their title.
I don't need nor want to make a big paragraph on travel. I know from personal experience and the experiences told to me by other people whilst I have travelled that the act of travelling and being amongst people of different nationalities on their home soil really does culture you and make you more accepting of other lifestyles. Yeah, pretentious, I know, but it's true!

2) Population control.

It's an undeniable fact that there are too many humans and we are reproducing too quickly. Resources get exhausted quicker, water supply gets to be an issue, destruction of forests to facilitate the farming of various animals and construction of living space contributes to global warming etc. As well as the benefit it would have upon the Earth and its resources a smaller population would also make education a lot easier (as in the shrinkage of ignorance amongst the public, not a shady euphemism for the brainwashing of the masses in accordance with the new world order... I'm not about that.)

Have you ever watched a culture of bacteria grow? No? SPOILER ALERT The bacteria eats all the food then dies when their numbers become too big to sustain... More perfect analogies to come but in the meantime here are some ways to control population:

• EUGENICS: Eugenics has a pretty bad rap but in its defence  it does not have to be enforced by the government; it can be voluntary. "Eugenics" is often considered to be synonymous with "Nazis", this is obviously because the Nazi party made a very earnest attempt at eradicating the Jewish people, amongst other marginalised groups. (As a side note, if you look at a list of Nobel Prize winners it is found that the proportion of Jewish winners compared to their relative population is through the roof.) But, what if eugenics was something that was voluntary?
  
  Eugenics is "the movement of the application of science to improve the genetic composition of a given population"* but really, for all of my intents and purposes in this context I am mostly in favour of people simply being given responsibility for their own lives and the decisions an individual can make to commit themselves to death or sterilization. Such decisions should be respected by any given population. An example of how this might work would be the instigation of genetic screening as common practice or as a readily available option for the public where the results can be handled by the individual however they see fit. This means that people who carry dominant alleles (and also recessive genes but to a lesser extent due to the reduced probability of offspring being born with the disease) for genetic diseases, such as Huntington's, would hopefully make the responsible decision to not have children.
  
  As well as this the simple "right to die", even in the absence of genetic benefits to future offspring, should be allowed by any given state if someone decides they no longer want to live. It is a no brainer that protocol should probably be instigated to help the individual if they suffer from depression in order for them to be sure that death is what they want but minus the bureaucracy the decision to relinquish control of life to the party of whom it is the greatest concern is a matter that is given much too much morbid gravity. A part of the mass responsible for said gravity is often found in churches and other religious buildings where their faith brings them to believe that their God grants them power over the termination of another's life. I'm not going to try and go too deep as it's a subject riddled with ethical issues but there's a Wikipedia article for it, check it out!

• GRADUAL CHANGE OF THE PUBLIC PARADIGM: This has happened, to an extent and in a way, already (though perhaps influenced by economic factors.) How many elderly relatives do you know that have told you numerous times "I come from a family of 9."? Perhaps the idea of child rearing being the epitome of an adult life can be altered in the same way that the public image of smoking has flipped in less than 100 years. Personally I think this is the most important step of all. Surely you could just enforce a cull of humanity. I don't think so.
  
  To be at the height of pragmatism, compulsory extermination of objectively inferior people would be the most effective means of reducing population but the impact of such social trauma would make any ensuing change, however positive, short lasting or even impossible. I do not advocate this position but if the objective is to reduce population efficiently it would work. However, like in survival films where people stranded on a mountain have to eat each other to survive, no matter how luxurious their lifestyle is upon their return to society what they had to do to survive severely, negatively affects their mental well-being. For positive social change to happen the change can not be forced upon a people. In order for such change to last it must be gradual and accepted by a body of people in order to be lasting.

• LOGAN'S RUN: Watch "Logan's Run".

• CONVINCE PEOPLE TO BE GAY: Well, certain sects of society think that being gay is a choice. They are of course wrong but they did inspire this next point so that was nice of them. I say "convince" as a joke but perhaps if humans were made aware of the wide spectrum of sexuality more people would be open to experimentation and perhaps find they prefer the gay lifestyle... maybe. Be like the bonobo in their sexual exploits (yup, I'm including penis fencing in that.) Less prejudice means more experimentation. See the progression of science in the absence of religious oppression for more details... This one totally works right? Right?

3) Open up borders.
I believe the progression of people within a country is firmly held back by the other people residing in that country. E.g. Some Americans are, at current, getting mega butthurt that gays are being given rights and that their government has implemented a national health service. In the meantime gay people think this is great and  people that are susceptible to injury and disease are jubilated that their healthcare is now fre- wait, they're not? Oh. Well, my point is that polarized governmental parties mean that there is a constant back and forth between opposite ideals where the progression towards an objective is constantly halted and compromised. I find this very frustrating as ideas often aren't carried out to fruition, or at all, which means the full effects of a policy are not felt. This means that the effective alteration of policy is difficult to conduct as you would be basing said alterations upon the incomplete (or non existent) result data of the policy... that makes sense right?

You know when crazy nationalists say "IF YOO DONT LIEK THIS CUNTRY THEN GEYT OWT"? Maybe they have a point... If there was free movement of humans across the globe different "nations" may become the refuge of certain sects of people. A place for religious crazies, a place for the scientifically progressive. I am not suggesting the segregation of people, but the free distribution of those that hold certain ideals. For example, Baghdad, before Islam contributed to the intellectual downfall of the city, was once the scientific capital of the world, partly because it allowed the exchange of ideas between people from many different faiths.

The next logical thought is, of course, "but won't that just re-establish nationalism, perhaps even make it more polarized?". My answer to such a question is "Yeah, it totally would." If somehow the above was allowed or forced to happen within the next year people wouldn't know how to act. We would still be the very psychologically primitive species that we are now. One whose tribal aggression and confirmation bias obscures reason and rationality. This is not a plan of immediacy (though the sooner it would be put into action the sooner it would succeed. Or, alternatively, the sooner we would know of its failure and the next initiative can be made.) but a plan that requires the gradual execution over generations. As I've said, it requires an entire overhaul of the sociological systems in use at current but perhaps, given time, humans can overcome their primitive social prejudices and knee-jerk reactions to the world around them.

A relate-able example is perhaps the abolition of slavery. Even 70 years ago the general consensus of mainly white societies towards black people was enough to ensure separate bathrooms were built and black people had to sit on the back of the bus. Now, the president of America  is black (again with America, I know but I thought it was more topical than Mandela's election in '94) and black people can hold any position in society they wish (if prejudiced individuals of higher power allow it.) Substitute physical appearance for ideologies and my cohesive future land of acceptance and respectful getting-on-with-it-ism may have a chance.


That's it. That's my plan. Though each point is heavily interlinked with each of the other points I think #1 is of the highest importance. Once every human can judge the merit of another human-being, regardless of that human's origins, on that human's own merit and not by using the blanket, tribal method of "them and us" the free flow of differing people across the globe can happen. Also, this is just an outline, not a manual. I have tried to reconcile the most blaring problems but if you've spotted an issue with something the chances are I did too and have thought it too anal (ha, anal) to plaster over. Ideologies are so named because they are ideal (DEFINITELY DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS IN FACT THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD.)

I like to believe mankind is capable of change but we are still in our infancy as a species; there's so much left to learn.


* Though I put that definition in quotation marks it is not quoted from anything. It is a paraphrase that is still true to the [various] definitions of eugenics. I just wanted it to be made aware that those words do effectively define eugenics and are not the result of an opinion.