The Day Earth Stood Still

I’ve just watched The Day Earth Stood Still in the cinema. I enjoyed the movie, and of course, played with my own thoughts while watching… I sometimes have dark thoughts, almost wishing for a catastrophe, a cataclysm, or at least an imminent threat of one, so peculiar and global that it truly makes the whole world stop.

On closer inspection I never wish for destruction or death, but I still wish something induced people to stop for once in their lives, stop like they’ve never stopped, took a step back from where they were and saw it, saw themselves and the world around them from a different perspective and ask themselves some hard questions they’ve previously been taught and induced to avoid.

I believe that most people, however, do feel that something is in our future that is so significant that it will reshape the world as we know it. Most religions claim to predict it. Certain scientists expect it. Movie industry and culture likes to play with spectacular scenarios of what it might be. And every decade there are movements of people believing a special year is coming, and a special day, the current obsession being around 2012 (unsurprisingly, the movie industry is planning to cash in on this by launching a same named movie: 2012). It’s like most individuals of our humanity have some sort of a inexplicable premonition, in form of an urge to wonder about and expect something….

Looking at the world and how quickly it has been changing in the last century lends further credibility to such mysterious expectations. Two world wars, industrial revolutions, global economic upsurges and depressions, continuing globalization and unprecedented evolution of technology and knowledge… Our world is changing constantly, and at accelerating rates. And it feels like this acceleration must lead towards something.. we may hit the wall or cross a threshold.

The best point that can be extracted from the movie, one which also marked the most significant thought left at its ending is that we change on the precipice, when pushed to the very edge of our current paradigm in fear that we will either perish or face the darkness of the unknown.

I believe something is coming, but I don’t know nor will pretend to know what. Many will swarm to tell me “It’s Jesus!”, “It’s the singularity!”, “It’s Planet X”, “It’s an asteroid!”. You entertain yourself with those best guesses. I’ll wait and see, and meanwhile be who I am and on a mission that I send myself to. Do what is right, no matter what the future holds. And I will remember that only I can say what is right for me.

Tags: ,

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 27th, 2008 at 3:15 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through this RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

  • Taco

    Hi, a late merry somethingmas to you!

    The odds that we will never be at risk of a spectacular catastrophe are incredibly low. That's because the number of things that could happen and the timespan in which they could are both very large.

    When the shit is about to hit the fan, I wouldn't count on humanity to unite and solve the problem. Just look at our response to global warming: governments waste resources on arguing about semicolons and set unambitious goals, rich individuals buy fluorescent lamps or even LEDs, but also huge plasma TVs that annihilate all carbon savings, poor individuals want everything the rich ones have (and get it as soon as they can afford it), and companies on average do barely enough to keep consumers and governments happy (while pretending to do much more).

    To be honest, I really hope human-caused global warming isn't real after all, cause if it is, we're SO s*****d!

    For another example, look at Israel and Palestine. Apparently it's very difficult to figure out that one can also have no significant change without killing each other, and that killing each other does not lead to significant change…

    Facing lethal problems doesn't make humanity unite, all it does to humans is make them try to let others pay for the solution.

    Still, I have hope that something can make humans care as much about others as they care about themselves, because I have seen that when there are no difficult problems to solve, most of them do. So let's hope for and think about solutions without losers, solutions that change trouble back into business as usual, and humanity back into something that is easy to love.

    May next year be full of such solutions!

  • admin

    I hope you had a merry xmas too. :)

    I agree humans wouldn't exactly unite to solve the problem and yes most would look for someone else to solve it. The effect is an upsurge of demand for that particular solution which makes the job of working at it so much more profitable, thus encouraging those who do have some clues as to what the solutions could be and the entrepreneurial spirit to drive them, to work on them and them offer them at the acceptable price.

    The whole environmentalist scare is doing exactly that, fueling the ongoing green tech evolution in the market. And the current crisis may even give it the big kick in the butt since "environment-friendly" also tends to be more economic, cheaper in the mid to long term and more empowering for the individual (fueling more self sufficiency) who is going to be looking for the ways to survive and prosper in tough economic times.

    So it really confirms, I think, the theory that people change on the precipice. I just don't think such a change comes from being united. It comes from being who we are already as self interested individuals. The problem, IMHO, is every attempt to forcefully inhibit this process at work – with some form of violence.

    Israel and Palestina wars aren't a simple matter of people killing each other due to some strange urge. Both sides believe in violence because they believe in some abstraction that makes it seem justifiable and legitimate. Remove the abstraction and the violence begins to seem like a naked emperor. Of course, it's tough enough to convince a european or an american to dismiss such justifications, let alone a middle east statist whom has been consuming the drug of violence so long that even seeing it nakedly for what it is doesn't leave as much an impact as the same realization would have for a westerner.

    I agree most people do treat others nicely in general. I'm not even sure this is only in absence of big problems. We're constantly being bombarded with threats of all kinds through the media yet the common scene on the streets which are impossibly proclaimed as collective ownership (which should cause chaos), even in those circumstances, most people are peaceful and good to each other. And even in face of a huge monopoly on welfare services, they STILL donate to private charities. People are proving themselves to be more inherently good than bad to each other, the more they're left alone the better.

    I agree with your wish for the new year. I think it will be a tough, but big year, perhaps the beginning of the new era, the threshold.

  • Taco

    In the end the Israel vs Palestine conflict is nothing but a competition for a resource – a resource that makes no sense to people who don't share one of the religions, but still. If it wasn't about a "holy" land, the conflict would have been something of the distant past by now.

    My point is, competition for very scarce resources makes people act less than nice, and tough problems cause scarce resources.

    (By the way, it might amuse you that I'm the religious equivalent of a voluntaryist – I don't let anyone tell me what god to believe in :) . That's no reason to be the same on the political side, though, sorry.)

    Switching to a different subtopic, yes, there is a growing market for "green" products. There also is a (possibly bigger and faster) growing market for "greenwashing": making things appear green without the costs of actually doing it. There's much more money to be made in that fraud than there is in real green technology.

    In the end the solutions don't come from people who are in it for the money, but from those who like to solve problems because it entertains them.

  • admin

    I think resource scarcity is an illusion of the ignorant. Human individuals have the traits that make scarcity a foolish concept to hold on to: creativity and inventiveness. That some people believe in scarcity and therefore instead of creating seek to steal and kill for that which they perceive as scarce is nothing but a result of the mind blinding abstractions I mentioned.

    Voluntaryism is about non-initiation of violence. That principle sees no distinction between the religious, political or any other realm. No matter what you believe if you want to call yourself a voluntaryist you cannot believe in the state. Voluntaryism is neither religious nor political.

    So long as you condone violence against me you can't even call yourself religiously tolerant. If my religion included a belief against the existence of the state (and therefore obedience to it) your political opinion is I should eventually be thrown in jail for some act of disobedience.

    If there is a market for "greenwashing" the reason for it is embedded in your very sentence. :P The "market" for something means there are people who buy things that just seem "green" (that being as far as they'd check the product), thus being susceptible to the fraud – until there is an impetus to change this, and there is, as "greenwashing" is not a new term to me, the fraud is in the process of being exposed. Of course, the fact some people don't care to check their facts is none of my business. Once they begin to feel the pinch too they'll be more vigilant about what they buy too.

    Every claim that it is somehow wrong because it is profit that is being pursued instead of what you would see as the "real solution" is just your own subjective opinion which you have no right to impose as a guiding principle on anybody else. That said, I agree those who love solving problems will likely be the best ones to solve them, but that's just an observation, not a potential law of the lands.

  • Taco

    Apart from creativity and inventiveness one also needs dumb luck to find solutions that work. The only place where scarcity doesn't exist is La-La-Land.

    By your own methods of reasoning each square meter in the "holy" land can be owned by only one person – it can be owned by an Israeli, or by a Palestine, but not by both. Tell me how land there is not a scarce resource, and do remember that availability of property elsewhere isn't "holy", and that making more of it inhabitable doesn't help one bit – both sides don't care if it's inhabitable, they just don't want the others to live on any of it.

    I don't think you should be thrown in jail for your beliefs, even when you cling to them in a religious way. For being a fraud and a freeloader, however… As unfortunate as it may be for you, you are making use of things other people paid for through taxes, and not keeping your part of the deal. If you don't want that, I suggest you go live in the wilderness. But we've been through that argument before, haven't we?

    Anyway, I was just making a funny observation that if you consider ONLY religion, I might be considered a voluntaryist. I guess you didn't get it was a joke – don't you realize I'd rather jump of a cliff than use the word "voluntaryist" in a positive way? (Okay, that's a bit over the top, but you get the idea. Perhaps a not too high cliff.)

    About greenwashing: you can't be serious! For comparison, imagine I set up a charity claiming to support some unverifiable but important cause. I keep all the money for myself. Would you consider that okay? Hey, there's a market for making people feel good about themselves, doesn't matter that they are lied to, right?

    Now think of the money spent on things that don't actually work against global warming. That's exactly like the above, with two nasty extras: everyone will feel the pinch, not just those who misspent their money, and some really awful things are done like kicking people in far away countries off their farmland to plant trees on it.

    Surely the free market is a GREAT thing that will solve any problem.

  • http://monochromementality.com/ Kevin Dean

    >> and not keeping your part of the deal

    This line alone is enough. What is this "deal" you speak of? When did he agree to have a portion of his wealth taken for services that he can't decline to have?

    Arguing that someone "owes" someone else something because it exist is like me dropping furniture in your home and then handing you a bill. More, it's threatening to put you in jail of you DON'T pay that bill – the fact that I took it entirely upon myself to deliver the furniture without you ORDERING it doesn't factor in one bit.

    There can be no "deal" without consent. Is that too difficult of a concept? Seriously?

  • admin

    > Apart from creativity and inventiveness one also needs dumb luck to find solutions that work.

    "Luck" is just an abstract for "causes not known to me". Abstract itself, however, cannot be a cause. To say you need "unknown causes" to achieve something is therefore silly. If you truly want to achieve then you're better off exposing all of the potential causes of your achievement than counting on some of them to be unknown.

    > The only place where scarcity doesn’t exist is La-La-Land.

    The only place scarcity really exists in is the mind of people believing it. How on Earth can you with such absolute certainty say for any particular resource that it cannot be found or produced anywhere else or in any further quantities? Claiming so is claiming to be a god that defines absolute and universal limitations. Of course, you're unlikely to be a god, therefore those limitations are merely a product of your imagination.

    While you're stuck in this poverty inducing mentality, someone will go and perform what you'll consider a miracle, of breaking the limits you imposed, and then you'll be left scratching your head and whining about how unfair he is to do so because now he has so much and you so little, undoubtedly seeking to tax him for it by force. Pathetic.

    > Tell me how land there is not a scarce resource, and do remember that availability of property elsewhere isn’t “holy”

    "Holy" may be one of the mind blinding abstractions I mentioned. It's completely mental, and this particular abstraction represents absolutely nothing in reality. Land claimed as holy is just land and remains utterly oblivious and uncaring towards how many people kill each other over it. Land actually has nothing to do with why they're killing each other. It's all in their insane minds.

    Considering that there's a simple solution to their "predicament" which doesn't even require them to cease considering this particular piece of land as holy and thus absolutely scarce, makes the whole situation even worse. The solution, however, requires voluntaryism and individualism, not nationalist and statist warfare that they subscribe to.

    > As unfortunate as it may be for you, you are making use of things other people paid for through taxes, and not keeping your part of the deal.

    Deal requires two sides, not one. There is no deal. As Kevin said above there was no consent.

    Yet I can't even avoid paying all of the taxes. Certain ones like VAT and inflation, which in the long run actually are most expensive, albeit most hidden pay for far more than what little use I may have from the so called "public property".

    It's you who clings to the idea of public property where everybody is supposed to be an owner, something that can only result in chaos, as nobody is really solely responsible for it. I might as well give my sister the money instead of state. She is the owner of the public property too, right? I'm supposed to pay the owner for the services so I can give to anyone with an ID card. I could even just keep it to myself since I too am an ID card holding "owner", supposedly. Jeez, what a system!

    It's BS and you know it. If you don't than well.. you're a really sad case.

    > I guess you didn’t get it was a joke

    Your jokes are in this context usually stingy and carry a sincere implication, so I don't care what it was. I'll respond to the implication.

    > About greenwashing: you can’t be serious! For comparison, imagine I set up a charity claiming to support some unverifiable but important cause. I keep all the money for myself. Would you consider that okay?

    I never said it's ok. I made observations. People act on what they know therefore some people will sometimes act on false information. That doesn't mean I'm in support of fraud. But fraud can best be exposed through the free market, not one policed by some monolithic, monopolistic and coercive organization that is itself operating a mass fraud without which it couldn't even exist.

    > Hey, there’s a market for making people feel good about themselves, doesn’t matter that they are lied to, right?

    Yes there is such a market, and wrong, it does matter. The fact is people do often act to feel good and if they're oblivious to the fraud you can't blame them, you blame the fraudsters. Eventually they're exposed and sought to repair the damage. Exposing them obviously makes those who received the "feelgood" to get even more of a "feelbad" thereby creating a new market demand; demand to set the fraudster straight – repay the damage. This demand wont go away until this is done. There is no way out.

    Unfortunately, governments are there to provide a way out or at least soften the effect of the backslash, via their limited liability schemes designed to make individuals less responsible for their actions. And I'm asked to pay for it.

    > Surely the free market is a GREAT thing that will solve any problem.

    I cannot for the love of anything understand how could you possibly think violently restrained individuals (a non-free market) can do anything better.

    This discussion is over. Have a hopefully enlightening new 2009, not that I count on it.