| Shoddy Lumber. |
[Jan. 14th, 2005|02:26 am] |
The magazines coming my way this past week are telling me something. Time magazine is talking about happiness. Talking what makes people happy, talking about money, how it doesn't make you happy. A whole issue, almost all about happiness. Discover magazine had an article this month about how the disappearance of the human race would effect the world. Human effect on the world was one of the big themes throughout the issue. Time magazine, along with Wired, has been telling me for months about luxury, and about how humans have more of it now than ever-- specifically, they have been talking about how the accoutrements of the upper class are filtering down to more and more of the population. A physicist is talking about all the energy we'll need to support developing nations-- since they'll develop a thriving middle class before too long. Middle class people take a lot of energy to maintain. Specifically: I, a middle class person, require a lot of energy to maintain. I am a greater drain on the enviornment than almost anyone before me. This forces me to think, to consider the path upon which my enviornment has set me. Is it correct for me to ride the wave that my sources tell me is coming? Is it an advantage to me? Does it aid my goals?
Human beings, by default, obey certain rules. We eat, we sleep, we procreate. Beyond that, there are secondary items. Not so much rules as guidelines-- percieved internally as "goals". The primary directives we are almost powerless to alter. The secondary ones can be altered almost at a whim. Today, it is left to the individual to determine their own secondary directives. What are appropriate directives? What is the appropriate thing for a material entity to do when all the primary directives are accounted for? Most people in the world forced to answer this question have taken the path of least resistance. Their primary needs fulfilled, they shrug and keep consuming, still striving towards primary objectives. That is the path provided by inertia. That is the thing that people do if they do not do anything else. I think I have followed that path, and I think that is a mistake. Problem: If I stray from the path provided by inertia, I must do so with reason. What reason do I have?
I am afraid this will come down to painfully stubborn axioms. I don't like the feel of it. I don't like the way it slides through my fingers. It is a slimy issue.
Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome your input. What path are you following? I am curious. Tell me if you'd like.
I think what it will come down to for me is religious zealotry. If you're in a dark room and you see a light, follow it. If you don't see a light, strike a match and chase that. That's the anthem of religion. Some people have been lucky enough to hallucinate a light. I, unfortunately, do not have the schizophrenic inclinations necessary to fabricate one. I must rely on the material world, and strike a match to follow. It does not much matter what I call it, so long as I can follow it. I think I will call that match "science", and run as far as I can. But I am lucky in that. I am insane enough persue a goal as esoteric as "knowing what the material universe is like". Without scarcasm, I will admit that it was picked, more or less, at random. I think it was picked very early in my life, but it was random nonetheless. The rest of you, who may be not so mad as I, or may be madder: what do you call your match? Answer if you please, and illuminate me. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
fimbaz's journal
