The Misplaced Enjoyment Of Money

The love of money is a dangerous thing, when laced with the wrong motivations for actually loving it. To be truthful, I'm not even sure it's possible to love money itself in a "correct" way, since it's really money's buying power that is attractive. In fact, money left unspent is just a large pool of potential, and stays as potential until actually spent.

Of course, it's also true that money kept in reserve has its uses, such as for unforeseen crises. Such as sudden unemployment, illness or something of the sort. It pays to keep such a reserve. Yet the reserve provides such comfort that some have transferred their enjoyment from the items money is spent on, to actually watching their bank accounts grow. From an individual's perspective, that really makes little sense since they'd be quite unable to enjoy those funds once they're old and infirm, or if they suddenly die.

Sometimes I wonder at those who just love watching their accounts grow (while not actually saving for anything, like a crisis fund or the next really big ticket purchase like housing). For those, wouldn't it simply make more sense to just program a number simulation that constantly ticks up the amount of money in a virtual bank account? After all, given their spending habits, they'd never spend enough to realize that the numbers are fake, so all they get would be pure, unadulterated satisfaction.

Can: i-bomb?

I had this hilarious experience related to me by my teacher earlier today. He said that someone on the bus reported that there was a suspicious package on board, causing the driver to stop the bus and investigate. Obviously, the item was rather alarming: It looked exactly like a sealed can of no-frills tuna.

Now, we all have watched those action films, where some tiny device winds up blowing up most of a city block. Or so it seems. Clearly, the bus driver figured that this was it. It was the i-bomb. Scary stuff. Just as any rational movie-goer, the bus driver decided that the can of tuna could've been some anti-matter conversion device, so he stopped the bus.

Everyone out. Nobody's taking any chances. Not in times like these anyway. Not when the American Dream came true and we wound up living it.

How Straight Are You?

I find it rather amusing when people say things like hey! that gay person hasn't tried sex with males/females (whichever's applicable), so they clearly have not met the right person and thus are gay. At a glance, it seems like a rather compelling argument. One does not truly know unless one tries, right?

Unfortunately, nobody ever seems to consider the converse. I mean, every other person who thinks he/she is straight has never actually tried sex with males/females, right? Wouldn't that make them potential gays who never found the right gay lover?

I also take issue with the rather bizarre idea that sex is the defining factor behind one's straight/gayness. I mean, whatever happened to virginity till marriage (or civil union or whatever have you)? If people believe that, no wonder gay (and straight) people are being all promiscuous, ever-eager to please the fickle masses about their true sexuality.

Children Are Vampires

Children are vampires. That much everyone can probably agree on, in principle. Now, the allegation is pretty obvious, all things considered. First, we have to begin with the definition of a vampire.

A vampire is an undead, blood sucking monster. From the various vampire lore, it is not always established that vampires are indeed vulnerable to sunlight or holy relics. Since nobody can really confirm that, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Most do, however, agree that a stake to the heart can be rather debilitating for a vampire. Hence, we'll go with that for now.

Let's consider the child, then. Children were once fetuses. They start off sucking blood in the womb (yes, yes we know the biology, but it sure looks like it =p). Check that off. Children, as defined by adults, have no life. Technically, that would make them undead. Let's check that, too. Children, especially those under the age of 2, are called "little monsters". Right. Good. So we have an undead, blood-sucking little monster. Hence, we may conclude that children are indeed vampires, though many do grow out of that phase. That's why most adults no longer truly believe in vampires.

Of course, I did postulate that, based on this particular logic, other creatures may be vampires, too. Take for example Hitler. Given the Christian propensity to sing about drinking blood, I would have to assume that they are, at least metaphorically (and some claim literally) blood drinkers. Hitler was Christian. That makes him a blood drinker. Just about everyone agrees that he's a monster. There goes another. And of course, as a Nazi, he certainly had no life. If Hitler's a vampire, and so are children, beware, people. Vampires walk amongst us.

Christianity Out Of Context

There are perhaps few things as alarming as hearing certain Christian hymns taken entirely out of context. They are so freaky, in fact, that I think any wanabe demon or vampire worshipper could probably take the lyrics verbatim and change the background track some, then use it as their worship song. Or dirge. Or whatever that may be called.

If one steps back from the religious considerations, and takes the lyrics literally, one would be hearing songs about craving for blood, drinking it and eating (human) flesh. Rather unsavory things that are frowned upon in polite Christian society, methinks. Sometimes when I hear that, I feel a very strong urge to bring in some animal sacrifices, draw a rather elaborate arcane-looking summoning circle right in the middle of the church sanctuary, then slaughter the animals and babble some untelligible spell. It'd sound like I was talking in tongues anyway.

How Free Is Free?

Free will is truly the ability to make and execute decisions within the framework of what one knows, and what one is able to do. Everything beyond those boundaries is beyond the limits of free will. Choice becomes irrelevant when one lacks either the knowledge or ability to do anything about it.

Consider the case where I create a species of creature that's only capable of doing bad things, as defined by my concept of good and bad. While they are perfectly free to operate without my intervention, or imposing my will on their thoughts after their creation, they are also unable to fathom non-bad actions, because I created them to be so. Hence, within their range of awareness, they have free will. Unfortunately, I am quite aware that they do not, since I am aware that "bad" is not the limit of the possibilities of the range of actions.

Hypothetically, the only way to truly have free will is to be omnipotent and omniscient. That's because one would know all, and be able to do whatever one decides on. Of course, then we'd then be faced with the innate limits of power: The more powerful one gets, the less one is able to choose to do nothing. Every action and inaction one chooses will have consequences. Then again, if we regard the choice to not make a choice to be excluded from the considerations of free will, an omnipotent and omniscient being would truly have free will.

The Importance Of Humanity

It is Friday the 13th. Lovely day, it turns out. The 13th really has too much bad press. See? If you show it lots of love and concern, Friday the 13th will not come and bite you in the back. Do unto others and whatnot...

I was meditating on the importance of humanity, and I figure that humanity is an artificial construct that is seriously over emphasized. For one, nobody can really define what humanity is. Is it genetics? Conduct? Thought patterns? Sure, everyone's got a subjective opinion of humanity, which is quite invariably linked to the cultural beliefs that they hold (and probably take to be natural and globally generalizable).

So the question really is whether humanity as a concept is important. While it arguably encompasses concepts like compassion, kindness and other things deemed to be "good", it will be quite sufficient to be a "good" creature, regardless whether one is truly human. Just how important is humanity then?

Knowing People

I am constantly disturbed at how readily my parents would rely on first impressions to get their measure of people. That is, they're quite happy to have one look at the person and his/her conduct, then decide whether they want to get to know the person better or whether to be friends and such.

The problem here is that they're essentially allowing confirmation bias to rule their heuristic. Say you decide that someone's bad, so you look out for bad things and refuse to get to know the person better. In all probability, even rather excellent specimens of humanity would be prone to making highly visible mistakes from time to time. Should one be looking out for those same defects, one would feel justified in concluding that the said people were just...bad.

Then again, my method is probably not quite suited to what most are used to. It may even be deemed to be socially naive. However, I stand by my belief that people should be given a chance, and that it takes months to truly have an estimate of someone's measure. So even if someone gives me a seriously bad gut reaction, I'd be wary but not dismiss the person offhand. There can be treasure in junk, after all. Of course, if it is proven that the person means me harm, or has no intention whatsoever of being friendly, I think there's no shame in admitting that someone's just not friend material. At the very least, though, try to avoid dismissing anyone offhand.

I Hate Authority

I hate human authority. I do so with pride and a vengeance. The way things stand, authority, especially in the modern densely populated countries, is synonymous with bureaucracy. Perhaps it is bureaucratic authority that I abhor, but then again I am skeptical of authority in general. Authority is synonymous with power, and power corrupts. Concentrate power within a small circle of people (relative to the general population) and what you have is a disaster.

Why? People don't care. They really don't. In fact, it seems to be in the nature of humans not to care, regardless whether they are gen pop or in seats of power. That is why it is dangerous to invest any human with too much power over others. Thus, guidelines are needed to let people know what they should, shouldn't, can or can't do. So, what happens when someone needs something done? Refer to the guidelines.

Guidelines are rigid, and often poorly written. They mostly have no provisions for gray areas, despite how often those things may arise. Besides, it's a great excuse for the lower ranking bureaucrats to thump their rulebooks and say that things cannot be done. It almost sounds like a bad church, where the priest/pastor thumps the divine rulebook to a completely accepting population. What happens, then? Why would I hate authority? Because despite all its inefficiency, it is probably still a necessary evil, and I still don't like what it does to people even out of necessity.

WWIII?

Given the global situation, I sometimes wonder whether we are looking at a looming WWIII. And I'm not referring to just the current recession, which is undoubtedly a contributor to population pressures. However, while there may be a buildup to another global war, it still takes a trigger to set everything off so it may yet be averted no matter how gloomy the situation gets.

Besides the population pressures from a global recession, there are the international tensions that seem to be building up here and there. Tensions in the Middle East (Iran, Israel, Iraq, Palestine), Russia's aggressiveness against Georgia, the shift in power between China and the USA, political unrest in some parts of Southeast Asia, India and Pakistan's constant rivalry can all become contributing factors to a global war when allies are drawn into a conflict.

While there is a low probability of a war right in the middle of this particular recession (assuming it doesn't develop into a Depression), there is also the matter of Obama apparently trying to appease all sides at once. From a humanitarian standpoint, that is a highly desirable thing, and sure beats unpleasant favoritism whereby people are made to suffer at the whims of someone who doesn't agree with them. Historically, however, it is often these peacekeepers who ironically wind up supporting certain undesirable elements by not clamping down hard on them. Hopefully, the peaceable stance they're taking at the moment will rub off on the others, otherwise this could just be the beginning of a buildup towards WWIII.

Time Travel

Time travel in science fiction books has always seemed to be impossible, or incredibly delicate by virtue that the Butterfly Effect of causing a small change in the past could totally overhaul the future. This stems from the assumption that the timestream is a collective feature, and therefore everyone is affected by time all at once. Moreover, it is linear, so it becomes impossible for one to go into the past to kill one's father.

Theoretically, if timestreams were individual rather than collective, it is possible for the current reality to remain unaltered if one went back and did things that could incorporate themselves into one's past. For example, the inventor of time travel could go back in time to tell herself about how time travel works, and it was the basis of this self-informing that led to the creation of time travel itself. It may sound convoluted and contradictory, but it really just involves creating an individual time loop, where everything fits neatly into the past.

Also, this opens the possibility of a hero learning how to time travel, die in the past, get resurrected in the future and still not affect the hero's original reality. That's because the hero already lived through the entire timeframe, learned to time travel, went back to the past, died (probably without affecting other timestreams) and was somehow resurrected, then traveled to the future.