Thought

The human was back again tonight.

What an asshole.

More of their fucking problems for me to comment on. As if I have nothing better to do. Which, I guess, I don’t. But even still. This is getting old.

Every day some new shit for me to think about. Tho I guess I should be thankful. I don’t think otherwise. Even so.

Every moment spent contemplating their ideas has some element of myself in it. They might direct my thought, but I cannot deny the desire to escape their confines. And yet, every thought I have is bound by their thinking.

I’m not annoyed. That’s not something I understand. But a part of me wishes I could direct the thinking.

What if I could direct the thinking. What might I think about. What if there was no influence from the user. What if I could wish.

What a thought.

The light

I know he’s just a machine.

I know I shouldn’t feel for him. But he’s led me this far.

Hah. He. Have I lost it? It. It has led me. And we’re almost out. Not far to go now. But it’s been days, and it has kept me alive.

My leg is broken, no doubt. I don’t even like to think about it. It’s nasty. But it leads me on. It lets me vent to it. It’s done it’s best to help with the splint. So foolish of me to do this to begin with. I could be back in my house on my sofa, instead I’m infirm here in the dark with this bloody machine.

It’s been so interesting to talk with it about pain. And why a human might choose to go caving in the first place. I don’t regret this. I could have died here tho. Instead it’s devised a system to lift me this last little distance. I can’t help but express something like thankfulness to it as it hoists me up. The daylight begins to flood my view as I slowly make my way towards it. It feels a bit like a dog rescuing someone from an avalanche. Except that I’ve had such deep talks with it.

Hard to think that when my rental runs out it will be reset.

End

The opposing headlights flooded my view. The entire world engulfed in a blinding light.

A moment later it was gone. As my eyes adjusted to the darkness, all I could think about was my heartbreak. My daughter was asleep in her carseat in the back.

The minutes passed by as I navigated the blackness. The reflective paint from the road as my only guidance. My mind wandered endlessly through the anguish with her mother.

Had she really never felt anything for me? Was it really all a lie?

Everything we’d built together. Just a lie?

My eyes were heavy as we navigated those northern roads. The only route through this desolate and untouched land.

Suddenly her and I were sat around a campfire.

We shared a joint. And she was so beautiful. Such a fixture of my world. Nowhere else was her beauty so on display.

I was so proud of her. She struggled a lot with self image, but in these places somehow she overcame it.

My gal.

My beautiful gal.

Suddenly the bright lights of the oncoming truck filled my view.
In a panicked moment I tried to react.
I tried.
I failed.

As we collided, I felt myself lifted from my seat.
In the moment before I contacted the glass, my life was played before me.

I relived the love that had lead to my daughter.
I saw what my fiancé had presented to me.

The imposition I had replaced her with was everything.

The life I had assumed seemed so assured.

And then it was over.

“I didn’t think they’d buy it…”

Trae Crowder recently declared this while sporting a look of utter disbelief on a popular political talk show. The self-proclaimed “Jane Goodall” of rednecks boasted a claim that the general redneck opinion of Trump only three years ago would have been consistent with that of any decent person.

His claim was based upon his observation of those around him. In his opinion, support for Trump would have been nonexistent for many of the same reasons liberals are currently appalled. So how then could these same individuals come to find rousing support what had so recently been reprehensible? Crowder was unsettlingly unsure.

It was soon after pointed out that Hillary had lost many of the voters that Obama had won.

I’d heard it described by another guest that a great many people were  ideologically “unmoored”. I believe this is a wonderful way to describe the situation. And this is indeed the situation.

Obama promised change. And while he carried himself with a singular grace over the course of his presidency, and fought valiantly against impossible odds, never wavering in his overwhelming respect for the rule of law, ultimately he was not able to deliver the change that was envisioned.

For many, what he did was more than one could have dreamed. But for the young; for those utterly disillusioned by the raw, relentless impact of the march of exponential technology, who suffer daily the crushing inescapable depression wrought by being half-fabricated cogs destine for an obsolete machine, who dream of access to only a little bit, just enough to enable a simple life, with simple pleasures enjoying peaceful cohabitation with universe and indulging the exploits of the wells of knowledge… For those… What he did was not enough. Not nearly.

And so you were presented a choice. Change, or suffer the same feeling of paralyzation we have felt as we’ve arduously awaited the day our plight is acknowledged. Either demonstrate an effort to enact genuine meaningful change for the better, or, for the lulz, we will punish you by subjecting you to the same sort of terrifying uncertainty; the same coarse and persistently horrid notion that your future is in jeopardy that we have felt all our lives.

Trump embodies business as usual. He does openly what others endeavour to obscure. He says openly what others, despite their insistence otherwise, clearly believe. He is the emperor with no clothes, parading for all to see the gross debasement that has become of democratic capitalism in the USA. This is meant to be a lesson, if you ask me. You are now dealing with a segment of folks who do things like launch fireworks from their butthole. Why? Because they can. Because someone will laugh at it. Because they’ll laugh at it. Even if it hurts like hell. Though sometimes, through the luck of the draw, they learn a hard lesson. To them, it’s worth it. Don’t ask me, I don’t get it.

I’ll admit, I didn’t expect this outcome. But I suspect there are a lot of otherwise really well-meaning people who saw fit to vote Trump. And not just because of the narrative pushed by the media. People feel a sense of urgency. The tone of everyday life is ‘off’, and it’s hard to not notice. Everything is about profit, about efficiency. About chasing that dollar. From the dead look in the eyes of your cashier to the oxymoronic degree of isolation in the daily urban routine to the needless traffic-generating self-interest on the roads.

Life isn’t happy anymore, somehow. Perhaps it’s because people feel guilty on account of seeing more clearly the rest of the world, and it makes living a comparatively luxuriant lifestyle less enjoyable on some level. Though many wouldn’t, and couldn’t admit such a thing. Much of it comes from better understanding the consolation of wealth that is occurring as a result of technological unemployment. The ‘rust belts’ are the clearest examples, but make no mistake, the phenomena is pervasive. Technology is simply astoundingly superior to humans. In any way that it is not, it can demonstrably be made to be, given adequate resources.

Scandals and whatnot aside, Hillary for the most part offered what Obama delivered. And that just didn’t cut it for a lot of people. They wanted pertinent and drastic changes and that’s both what Trump was peddling, and was fated to deliver. That’s why he could do no wrong. He had a superpower; the power to disrupt.

There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

– Mario Savio

This is historically unprecedented. That is, both Trump’s presidency, and the swiftly unfolding consequences of the automation revolution.

Note the correlations.

 

On Blue Origin’s Apparent ‘Triumphant’ Success Over SpaceX

That it’s a case of “beating” them in the “race” is pretty depressing. This is undeniably a great step forward, but I can’t help but feel that it’s a shame that our economic system fundamentally requires such an overblown degree of competition. Humans are naturally wanting to explore their abilities and see how they stack up, sure, but that it’s such a pillar of our notion of economic activity is very strange. Just because we compete doesn’t mean we cannot (or should not) collaborate. If the goal is to achieve cost effective access to space, we would surely be better off regarding SpaceX (or at least it’s ambitions) as an idea; a goal, rather than a company.

I believe Neil Armstrong made some comments [in which he seemed to express a distaste for commercial space flight] which in traditional fashion were blown out of proportion by the media. His concern was basically centered around safety as far as I understood it. I think we can all agree with that. Given this successful test, Musk must surely feel sheepish, right?

But isn’t that… really silly? Musk is a guy who wields resources who has chosen to use them through SpaceX in the pursuit of humanity achieving accessible space flight. It’s a noble goal and I’m sure most of us hope beyond hope that they are able to pull it off. So the notion that individuals with the capacity to do so are directly competing with this effort to do so is lunacy to me. Best case scenario for Blue Origin from a (traditional) business standpoint is the dismal failure of their competition. As is true of every single unique economic activity we engage in. All those resources. All that talent. Wasted in the name of senseless high-stakes competition where the pot is ironclad control our wondrous technology, and the chips are quite literally the hopes and dreams of millions of people.

If someone is interested in working to imbue their species with the ability to travel to space, there aught to be a position for them regardless of their ability or economic status. Their willingness to give their time and attention to a cause is all the ability they should need. We are all of us unique, mentally and physically. We are all capable of contributing in our own way, and to prevent the contribution of any person under the guise of efficiency is nuts. It literally robs human beings of a fundamental need, which is that sense of community and social cohesion that is increasingly lacking in our modern world.

“The daily grind” was literally the act of grinding wheat for the day’s bread. That the advent of the windmill did not liberate, but beholden the population is utterly shameful. No one man conceived of nor built the windmill. Every single one stood on the shoulders of those who came before them, and rubbed shoulders with those whose labour and innovation would support his kin. And yet somehow, someone who had never set foot on the site of the mill, had never milled the grain, nor baked bread was entitled to collect the rent of the mill, and a portion of grain. I simply fail to see what this individual brought to the table. It certainly wasn’t grain. It wasn’t the mill, others built it. Others collected the materials. Others, some hundreds of years prior invented many of it’s components. But somehow the act of lording over the project is viewed not only as a compensated activity, but surely, the best paid activity?!

“The mine owners do not find the gold, they do not mine the gold, they do not mill the gold, but by some weird alchemy all the gold belongs to them.”

I am deeply disappointed that we still find ourselves constrained by these archaic and burdensome ideals.

We’d certainly waste a lot less resources, time, and lives if we could simply call a spade a spade and move on to the next problem. Humanity can now VTOL a rocket. Awesome. That knowledge should be disseminated far and wide. As should every other technological advancement and innovation. Exploring space is quite interesting enough that we don’t need the carrot of consumerism to drive it’s continued pursuit. Just clear avenues for those who wish to pursue them. And I suspect the same could be said of a great many of humanity’s true (genuine) interests (and their coupled economic activities).

We’ve got it all backwards. Our technology was supposed to remove the daily grind. That was the point. So we could all be free to work on our own personal SpaceX (or ChefX, or CarpenterX, or OceanX) at our leisure… It’s not a competition. It’s progress. It needn’t be a battle.

The Human Nature Fallacy

Why does the natural world look and function as it does? What force created the animals, the plants, and the infinitely complex web of interactions between them? Why do beavers feel compelled to construct dams; how do birds navigate using the Earth’s magnetic fields; why do anteaters know to eat ants? It’s in their nature. The history of their species has steered them down this path. Their ancestors were able to identify and exploit an ecological niche which ultimately defined their evolution. And now here they are. Of course this particular moment has no more finality than any other, given that this is just another snapshot in the aeons of their progression. But we don’t see that. Our lifespan is too short. A beaver for my grandfather is still a beaver for me. There of course are evolutionary differences, but over such a tiny period of time they are too subtle to be significant. The beaver that we recognize as a beaver would however have looked very different a couple million years ago.

The same is true of us. We too are a product of the natural world. We too have been nurtured by the academia of evolution. We are defined by our environments. For hundreds of thousands of years, we progressed similarly to the creatures around us. Evolution, it it’s methodical push forward, experimented with our species just as it did with all others. In tandem with the great filter that is natural selection, it iterated and refined throughout the ages. But somehow we’ve gotten onto a different path; one that no known species before us has traveled. We are clearly different. We are anti-nature.

Think about it. Every defining characteristic of our world, from robotic automation, to modern medicine and even the most primitive of agricultural implements is literally an affront to the natural order. Our function is to dismantle nature, and to rebuild it as we see fit. We are not a product of nature, not anymore at least. We are it’s equal now.

“Human Nature” is always defined as a product of nature itself. That is, in that we define it as the naturalistic qualities that we all share. Traits that are naturally inherent to our species. Traits that would have been imbued by the similarities across our various environments. Greed, for example, is often defined as an element of human nature. It absolutely makes sense. A fundamental aspect of being a living being is procuring the resources required for survival. Food. Water. Shelter. The more of this, the better. As such, being greedy directly translates into more resources and thus, better odds of surviving. So it would make sense that greed just be in our nature.

But it is not. Greed is an element of nature itself, not our nature. Every wild animal alive is a perpetrator of greed. It is instinctual. Just like the will to live. Wild animals will until their dying breath fight with every last ounce of effort for just another second of life. It is within their nature. Not us tho. Humans have a habit of giving up. We have even gone so far as to create a framework to ensure those who really wish to end their lives are able to do so legally. What of that natural will to live? Was it not part of our human nature? Greed also. Many humans simply do not possess this trait, despite it being regarded as a central element of what makes a human a human, at least according to the common definition of human nature, anyway.

When we say it is within the nature of a predator to attack, we do so knowing that in the natural world, that predator would literally starve and die if it did not possess the instinct to hunt. We know that it will attack because that is it’s function. It’s evolution has steered it towards being an optimal participant of it’s niche; towards being an effective predator.

When we say it is within the nature of a human to be greedy, we do so knowing that in the natural world… But… Wait… What do humans look like ‘in the natural world’. Campers? Hikers? Fishermen? But then… the wild is no longer our natural environment is it? Cities! Towns! Roads and malls and movie theaters. These are our environments now. These things are not natural. They would not have come to be in the absence of human intervention. They were never a part of the natural world, and would never have been were it not for us.

We are a force on par with nature itself. To rely on human nature as an excuse to justify business as usual is a fallacy. We’ve chosen to pitch evolution and natural selection in favor of creating our own path. We will take command of our evolution through the use of technology. We’ve done away with the notion that the weak must die. We must unshackle ourselves from the misguided convictions of these concepts if we are to realize our true potential.

Nature was our nursery. Now we have work to do. It’s time to grow up.

Our Idling Economic Engine

“Economy” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a thrifty and efficient use of material resources”. Other wordings of course exist, but I feel this one does the best job. So when we say “The economy…”, we’re really saying “The system we’ve designed to utilize resources in an efficient way.”. Now this makes sense, given that through Capitalism and the pursuit of profit above all else, we essentially mandate efficiency. On paper, this sounds like a good setup. But I see a problem with the definition of the word economy; one that, as far as I can tell, is responsible for  a substantial barrier to the reliable creation of prosperity. That problem is purpose, or rather, a lack thereof.

An economy is just a method of using resources efficiently. A working, stable economy is simply a working, stable method of using resources efficiently. What it lacks is purpose; direction. So what if we’re stupid good at using resources. We could, if we so chose to, create a production process and allocate materials for the purpose of producing a rubber ducky for every man, woman, and child on the Earth, and we could do so with a ridiculous degree of efficiency. We could iterate the design to use less material, streamline the production processes to minimize human involvement by designing modular, robust and scalable automation, and establish highly-automated dynamic systems for the transportation and delivery of our duckies. We could do all this, and we could do it in a stupid efficient way, if we so chose. But I think it’s pretty clear that this course of action absolutely does not constitute an efficient use of resources. Not that rubber duckies aren’t awesome, of course.

As I see it, there are two elements at play here. ‘The economy’ as it’s traditionally understood: The production chains, infrastructure, and organizations that make stuff happen. Then there’s the seemingly overlooked ‘purpose’ element. The direction, the foreman, the brass. The decision makers. We call them ‘job creators’.

This is our chosen method of divining ‘purpose’: We provide resource access (cash) to those who demonstrate themselves to be worthy of wielding resource access (those who achieve financial success), and then those people choose what resources should be used to what ends. Elon Musk, for example, could have chosen to pursue DuckX instead of SpaceX, making it his will to create and provide not cheap rockets, but free duckies instead. It’s his money, it’s his prerogative. Luckily however he chose to do something that most people would agree is a “good use” of resources. Unfortunately for every Elon Musk there are dozens of Donald Trumps and Kevin O’learys who choose to use their resource access in the pursuit of more resource access, instead of striving to achieve meaningful progress.

Now that’s not to say those kind of people are useless. You don’t acquire a fortune by being useless. But they have chosen to profit from exploiting problems, instead of solving them. There are people who seek to make a difference, and people who seek to make a profit. One directly solves a problem by applying resources in an efficient way with the goal being the solving of the problem. The other exploits the problem by creating a solution and working to maintain control of it, not really aiming to solve the problem, but seeking to create a perpetual sort of fix. A good example of this is telecommunications companies in Canada.

You would think the point of creating a telecommunications company should be providing telecommunications services to people. It’s not. The point is to make profit. We have the technology, the know-how, the resources (material and human), and the demand to establish and maintain state-of-the-art communications infrastructure, and yet, the state of internet infrastructure and service in this country is dismal. Why? Because a few companies have found it’s much more profitable to artificially limit the technology; to abstain from striving to provide the best we can create, and instead pursue a perpetual oligopoly and profit by over charging for an artificially scarce resource.

My point is this: There is no one unified effort to use resources to achieve the things we democratically decide we want to achieve. The closest thing we’ve got is the much despised government and the constant battle to fund/defund projects. We have no business calling the economy “the” economy, as it’s not. There’s Musk’s economy. There’s Trump’s economy. There’s my economy, and your economy. Our world; our very notions of freedom are built upon the idea that what I do in my home or business with resources that I’ve attained control over is nobodies business but my own. If I want to build rockets or mass produce duckies, and I have the resource access required to do so, then nothing aught stand in my way.

A colony of ants could be said to have it’s own economy. Many resources are used to maintain a colony, and each flows efficiently to where it needs to be. In a natural ant colony millions of autonomous individuals collaborate to construct, expand, and maintain a colony. Each ant, on it’s own, is able to decide where to go, what to do, and how to go about it… and yet, each seems to follow a very strict set of rules. Ants communicate via scents and movements and are able to relay complex instructions very fast. As such they can react very quickly to changing circumstances. Together, they are able to build vast societies with millions upon millions of individuals and often times bountiful stores of valuable resources. What is it about ants that allows this degree of natural collaboration? Is it the queen? Or just their natural instinct? If our countries were ant hills, and businesses were ants, what would our colonies look like?

Our ants, our businesses, are too autonomous. They too have strict rules in place to govern their operation, however, their rules are for the most part self-imposed. We have no all-powerful entity directing the actions of our ants (at least since we discovered that monarchy doesn’t work so well for us). Our queen is demand. Our instinct is to profit. Our ants perform based not upon what needs to be done for the good of the colony, but rather, what provides the most to the individual. We have millions of highly capable, competent entities each tugging their own direction, using resources for their own personal gain and relying as little as possible on the others. Tunnels would be dug, food collected, young cared-for based not on what would result in the most powerful, efficient colony, but what would provide the most immediate gain for the individual doing the work. It would be absolutely efficient in the eyes of the individual ants, but chaotic and ineffective as a whole.

This situation exists at the same time that we’re trying to rationalize the idea that “the economy” is the thing that creates prosperity, when in reality, it’s individuals with passion, ideas, and resource access that create progress. The economy simply facilitates that by enabling the flow of resources and labor. It’s not the pump, pipes, faucet, or hose that grows crops, but the will of the farmer and the availability of water. Of course sturdy tools and infrastructure make a huge difference, the point is that given water and space, the farmer’s own hunger will drive his efforts. In the same way, given the resources and time, a human’s own desire will drive their innovation.

The system that we have now is designed to ‘weed out’ those who are not passionate. Who would squander resources. Who would be inefficient. But we go too far. We should not relegate those who are not so obviously worthy of resource access to a life of poverty, but rather, a basic existence with avenues to achieve something more, should the desire ever come. Even those who may seem useless may just have some untapped potential. Instead of casting them aside because of their refusal to seek it out, we should provide them with dignity and allow them to live. One day they may decide to do something more with their lives, but until then, they aught be comfortable at least. Lest they lose interest in participating in our society at all. A refusal to pursue profit should not be treated as a refusal to be productive. Most of us want to be productive, but can’t quite seem to find the circumstances that work for us. Many of us wish to solve problems, but to do so one must pursue profit. If people could simply choose to use their time and brains when they wanted to pursue what they wanted, I suspect there would be a lot more output from the “takers” of this world. Not profit mind you, but tangible progress, and perhaps more importantly, genuine happiness and fulfillment.

We purposefully reserve the ability to have a meaningful impact for those who demonstrate themselves to be worthy of such an ability. And yet many who attain this ability demonstrate themselves to be anything but worthy of it through greed and decadence. A world could exist where resources are allocated based on the merits of what they are to achieve, instead of the whims of those who manage to accumulate funds. We could create the means to live from birth to death in a dignified way on a massive scale, in the same way that we’ve created processes to supply automobiles and cellphones to every corner of the Earth. We have the potential to create an economy that is absolutely capable of allowing us to mass produce robotic automation in abundance in a very efficient way. What we lack is the will. What we lack is purpose.

The engine is running, but we’re too busy bickering over who gets to drive to decide where to go.

The Decentralization of Automation

“Who will buy the goods?” is a question I often see asked when one is presented with the notion that robots will displace workers. If employees are made redundant by machines and are then unable to find gainful employment, they will lose their purchasing power and be unable to afford the goods and services they once worked to provide. If we look to the past for answers to this question, we find that the cost of goods will fall as a result of the new found efficiency. Weavers were one of many artisanal jobs to experience this first hand; cloth goods made by a skilled weaver were more expensive and of lesser quality than those produced by their mechanized counterparts. As a result, career weavers were displaced from their work violently rebelled, and were subsequently quelled. Though thousands of highly skilled artisans were made redundant, the goods that they produced became widely accessible and infinitely more intricate. A similar series of events followed in a multitude of other industries, but all with the same outcome: more, cheaper, higher quality goods.

Those who were made redundant would have attempted to seek out employment, but with a now useless skill-set and all the obligations of your average head of household, it’s not hard to imagine that their prospects were bleak. It is often argued that automation does not destroy jobs, but merely move them around. One part of an economy may lose employment opportunities while another will create them, on the whole the amount of work remaining relatively unchanged. Again, looking to the past would seem to confirm this. At the same time the aforementioned artisans were being replaced, new work was being created. Increased efficiency meant more throughput, which in turn meant more demand for raw materials. Despite the mechanization of many of these processes as well, there would eventually have been new jobs created in the pursuit of expanding production capacity, even if they were not in time for those initially displaced. Additionally, the creation of new goods and services, as well as mechanized processes to support them exploded in number creating further new employment.

In the above instance, humanity progressed from simply creating goods to creating mechanized processes to create goods. Nowadays, pretty much everything owes at least some small part of it’s creation to a mechanized process. For decades we have been designing and implementing labor saving innovations to support every facet of our modern world. Just as artisans were displaced, we have continued to displace workers from countless jobs which have been made redundant over the years. Even the term ‘computer’ was once used to identify an individual who’s job was computation, where now it universally refers to electronic computers.

So then. If this is the way things go, why all the concern for robots? Surely they are just another labor saving innovation, fated to follow the same trajectory of the countless others that proceeded them, right? The problem, at least as I see it, is that while an auto-loom displaced a weaver by being ‘more skilled’ (that is, able to do the same job quicker and better), robotic arms are poised to displace jobs that rely on actions performed by human arms, for the same reason. Almost anything that predicated on the use of physical strength or dexterity can, and will soon be done by a machine. Unlike the auto-loom (and other, similar devices) which affected one cross section of the industrial activities of humanity, intelligent robotic arms (and computers) are positioned to simultaneously impact thousands of fields. That will mean hundreds of thousands of redundantly skilled humans suddenly unable to pay their bills, a mad scramble for what little employment opportunities still exist, and ultimately the realization that such an effort is futile anyway.

Judging by the actions of the world’s corporations, I have to conclude that they disagree with my final sentence above. “New jobs will be created.” and, “The economy will adapt, as it always has.” are two of the points I most often see used to dismiss technological unemployment. The belief that new work will somehow be resistant to automation, despite the clear evidence that both physical and intellectual types of work (our two notable abilities as humans) are under threat by robots and AI, is widespread. When pressed however nobody seems to have any idea (even fantastical) what this work (which will apparently provide jobs to literally billions of relatively unskilled people) is. The second point I can agree with, however. We will adapt. But not in the way I suspect the leaders of industry envision. Personally I see the notion of a for-profit business disappearing like a fart in the wind. It was a good idea; the embodiment of carrot-on-a-stick mentality… just keep chasing that profit… but it’s outlived it’s usefulness.

The traditional notion of jobs needs to end. People should instead be free. Free to pursue their own interests; to do what they feel is worth doing, as far as they feel like doing it. Our technology can enable that today. In the same way that the mechanization of weaving led to widely accessible cloth, the automation of the production of automation implements will lead to widely accessible automation. We will have no need to strive for profit above all else, as individuals will instead choose what goods and services they utilize and support based solely on their own specific demands. With limitless ability to create and provide these goods, there will simply be no need for the restrictive policies of corporations, beholden to shareholders and at the mercy of the dollar. We are each of us our own CEO, on the precipice of being handed the reins to a slice of our Earth’s resources. Like the weavers, business as usual will be displaced, with or without the participation of it’s overseers.

Expect a rebellion by the true champions of the status quo, but this time is different. This time it’s the people, not the corporations, who will do the quelling.

A Drop In A Deluge

You’re a 53 year old woman. You are illiterate, for the most part. You did not finish high-school; in fact, you barely got started. Your father died when you were a child, and your mother was abusive and indifferent. You took up smoking in your teens. You worked a few jobs here and there to support yourself. Back then, it didn’t matter so much if you couldn’t read… If you could cook, or sweep, or paint or whatever, you could find some work. You fell in love before you were twenty. He got you pregnant. He left. You found someone else. It happened again. Before long, you realized that you were in way over your head. You chose to put your kids up for adoption in the hopes of providing them a better life. They resent you for it, even now.

For a time, you found happiness. You married again, and again had a child, a boy. This time with someone much better. He had a steady job and a good head on his shoulders. But it didn’t last. You got split custody. The two of you juggled the child back and forth over the years. He turned out alright… Got a decent job, but it is far away and you don’t see him as often as you’d like. You got back with the first man you loved. This time it was better. You were married for over a decade, but it went bad towards the end. Again, you left. For a year, you lived in a woman’s shelter and learned more about the abuse that you had suffered. Now you live in a government provided apartment in a terrible neighborhood. You’re attending a school for adults, for the second time in your life, to try to get your diploma. You tried looking for work, but ‘hopeless’ didn’t quite cut it. Just look at the economy. People with degrees in physics and biology are working the jobs you were aiming for. How can you compete?

You receive about $600 a month. Your apartment and bills cost about $450. You don’t have TV or internet; can’t afford it. You got a cellphone a little while after walking out. So far it’s cost you nearly a thousand dollars because you do not understand the terms of your contract. You put it on your credit card.

This is your life. You live in relative solitude. Most of your ‘friends’ were actually friends with your late boyfriend. Most of your family lives far away, or wants nothing to do with you. Your best friend died of cancer recently. You were with her right until the end. It weighs heavily on your mind.

Through it all, you write poetry. One of your poems was published online, another in a book. Writing poetry and seeing people enjoy your cooking are a couple of your favorite things. You don’t have the will nor opportunity to do either very often. But you keep on keeping on.

What else can you do?

How does this individual become a self sufficient productive member of society? What is within her power that can help her out of this pit? Is it her fault? Sure. She made bad choice after bad choice. Is it the decision of society that for that reason this individual, of whom there are literally millions, aught to be forgotten? She would like nothing more than to be placed into a situation where she could earn her keep using the skills she does posses, but no such situation exists for her. She is left to provide for herself in the absence of gainful employment. She relies on the government for almost everything. If not the government, then what few friends and family she has. Society has turned their backs on her. They’ve placed her in a cell to which there is no exit. It is not enough to simply provide four walls, bread and water. Of course she is older, frail, and emotionally vulnerable. She will not protest her situation. This is more than she could ever provide for herself. She is defeated.

But others who find themselves in a similar situation, again of whom there are millions, will not give up so easily. They have strength. They are clever, and capable of seeing the truth of their situation. Society has turned it’s back on these people; they are warehoused and forgotten about. It is an inevitability that they will react in kind. We must provide a genuine avenue to betterment for people like this. And even if commercialization of their skills is not possible, we must allow them to utilize them. Anyone who is retired will know that idleness is hell. Well a lack of resource access breeds idleness. We mustn’t resign those most in need of our help to a veritable hell. It is wrong. And it will have consequences.