Update

So recently I've been fairly busy with some personal projects (some subjective and other objective) and as such the message of this blog has not been spread as much as I'd like. I hope to correct that in the months to come by devoting more time to this wonderful online medium.

On a personal note, it can be quite tempting to stray from the objective logical course of action and take the standard way of living. I have found that unless one is constantly educating oneself, then one can become part of the machine without even realising - ignorantly blissful of what one is really doing. Similarly, the last few weeks have been about reconciling my objective and subjective points of view. They are both quite passionate (shows which side's winning doesn't it?) and can sometimes seem quite contradictory. I believe I have reconciled them nicely and am rather happy (but I'm always happy, you say). To sum up my views on reconciling subjective and objective views I have a quote I made up in an argument with a friend a year ago - "I think I'm better than everyone else. But I know I'm not." I believe you could apply this to almost anything, realising that it's fine to indulge in the subjective values, provided one is aware of the overall logical context of the values which one is engaging in. Making any sense?

Until next time.

Get to the Point.

When I resumed this blog a few weeks ago, I did so with a goal. This goal was to spread my views on the injustices which occur within society to the world and suggest alternatives or solutions to these issues. After much deliberation (believe me, it took months of trial and error) I decided that a blog was the best way to spread the message.

Activists don't really want change, they just want to be seen like they're doing something - so that was out of the picture. Charity work was also out of the picture (as I've explained in a previous post - see "Save the Children"). At last I realised the best method was education. In today's technological age the best way to spread information is via a website. But since websites cost money to host, a blog turns out to be a lot cheaper. In this way, people are exposed to the issues I discuss and if they are further interested they can check out some of the cool side links or google a concept. Google is a very powerful tool, and one should never be afraid to explore the web, moving outside the comfort zones of familiar sites.

But I digress; the point of this blog is to serve as a pathway to learning. Learning in a way which promotes sustainable values and not doing things 'half-arsed'. One of the most disappointing things about today's education system is the idea of testing. I understand the practical element, but we are teaching kids that if they know 'most' of the content, then it's good enough (i.e. 50% = pass). This is simply not acceptable in life. If a scientist is designing components for a space shuttle, they cannot be 50% right, they need to be 99.9999% sure otherwise there's a big chance some unnecessary life will be lost. An engineer designing a bridge cannot be 50% certain that it will stand. Do we accept these standards in industry? Then why do we teach our kids that 50% is good enough? No wonder we have so many problems in the world today when people are working on the assumption that they only have to get half of it right. I understand that it's almost impossible to learn something 100%, and mistakes will unfortunately be made, but we can strive to do the best that we can.

Rejection

Today was a momentous occassion. For those of you that don't live inside my thoughts (I'm assuming that's a fair majority), today was the day I posted my letter of rejection to the Australian Defence Force. For the last year and a half I've had my sights set on becoming a civil engineer with the Australian Army. My logic behind this was I'd be able to visit war-torn communities and help rebuild, while gaining a sense of camaraderie and team spirit in the process. When I told my friends, they only seemed concerned because it meant I would be moving out of the state, meaning they would see less of me (naive though they were in thinking that we would see each other if I stayed). Only a few told me that I was being a hypocrit, as my personal philosophies were so obviously anti-establishment a move to the Defence Force was in itself illogical.

However, I mostly dismissed these comments, ignorantly believing that this was the only way for me to help others while doing something I loved. I knew I didn't want to be a corporate engineer and thought this was the only other option (other than poverty). So, after completing the lengthy application process last year, I was selected to go to the Australian Defence Force Academy.

In the past few weeks I considered the offer I had. I had friends already at ADFA. I'd be living independently. Getting paid quite well to study for free. Have a guaranteed job at the end of my degree. Get to travel overseas. I knew once I got into the Defence Force I'd be relatively happy, but only if I forced myself to be ignorant of what I was doing and what I was advocating.

It seems like an obvious choice. Go to Canberra. But that last point kept niggling at me. I'd be supporting that which I had spent the last 6 months working so passionately against. In the end I realised that I can achieve what I wanted from the army in other areas. Camaraderie, volunteering, building, all combined. The road will be much more difficult, but I'll be taking it on my own terms, not owing anything to anyone, and as a result much more rewarding. This is the only way one can be truly happy, by relying on oneself, and not being so insecure as to feel a need to cling onto others (this attachment can take many forms).

The most poignant issue which made me change my mind was when I considered the purpose of the Defence Force: To defend Australia. Plain and simple. This is the end, and any means will be taken by the government to ensure this. As a member of the Defence Force, I would not be able to question the moral validity of this decision, I would be expected simply to obey as it's "In the best interest of the country". As someone who doesn't believe in nationalism, and as a human being, I could not expect myself to do that.

Save the Children!

Today I had a quite intriguing conversation with a 'volunteer' from the "Save the Children" organisation. Keoyn was one of the many 'volunteers' who troll Sydney looking to acquire donations from those they stop in the street. I love talking to these people, just to consider the way in which they view the problems in our world.

"Save the Children" is a not-for-profit organisation which advocates the better treatment of children, attempting to claim back a child's basic rights (i.e. right to survival, protection, development and participation). If you want to learn more about the "Save the Children" organisation, you can watch this short video.

During my talk with Keoyn, he told me about what they do and where they do it. The 'where' was pretty much every country on the globe (this was surprising, but ambitious, which I appreciated) and the 'what' ranged from a design called the Kanga Baby to providing education facilities in those countries without said facilities. I really admire the fact that someone is willing to donate their time to discuss these issues on the street, spreading the word. Keoyn's enthusiasm was quite inspiring and I wish we had more people in the world with his passion for change and justice.

However, I do have some issues with what they are advocating.

Firstly, the solutions they are suggesting are only temporary. Let me explain. The ultimate goal of these organisations is to eliminate poverty. This is done one step at a time through their programs. The solutions are only temporary as the goal can never be reached this way. While we live in a system which focuses solely on profit and acquiring money in order to acquire material possessions, poverty will always be present. Money is a class divider as there will always be those who have more than others. This spectrum results in the ones at the top being 'rich' and the one's at the bottom being 'poor'. If everyone has the same amount of money then it sort of defeats the purpose of it in the first place, doesn't it?

Using their methods in our current system, the only way to increase the quality of life of the incredibly poor, we'd have to either a) increase the living standards of everyone, so the incredibly poor are still poor, they're just better off or b) increase the living standards of the incredibly poor, reducing other groups to the status of 'incredibly poor'. Now it is plain to see that both of these methods are absolutely absurd. So one begins to question - these are great short term solutions being suggested, but how can we deal with the root cause?

The other issue I take is one of donations. Lets be serious, by comparison to government funding, donations mean nothing. They come out of the taxpayers pocket, are an incredibly small amount and are heavily taxed (i.e. as little as 20% of the money you donate actually goes to the cause). This is understandable, as these organisations have to pay for advertising in order to tell people about their cause so individuals can then donate (it's a vicious cycle, I know), but I think there are more effective ways to do this. Street people need to discuss the issues with members of the public, and if they show further interest, the street volunteers can direct them to information about how to volunteer their time and skills. No accepting donations and street talkers should not be paid by the hour (I find this apalling and hypocritical). There should then be another group which continuously lobbies their local MPs, discussing the issues and demanding more government spending be put into the infrastructure of the countries; suggesting programs and ways in which these could be implemented.

Keoyn's heart was in the right place, but I couldn't help but feel it was being insanely ineffective.

Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:

• S.C.A.O Save Poor Children in Asia Organisation - Phnom Penh, Cambodia
• Charitable Work Helps Your Bottom Line
• Poverty; One Man's Crusade to Save Impoverished Children
• Post-Conflict Ivory Coast: An Interview with Annie Bodmer-Roy of Save the Children

Into the Light: Sentiments on Death

A while ago, a friend of mine expressed their sentiments on death. I think the Peter Pan quote summed it up quite nicely: “Death would be an awfully big adventure.” At the time I couldn’t quite understand their logic. How could death be a big adventure? What could one possibly attain from an infinite period of non-existence?

I think the reason for my lack of understanding was my narrow-minded approach. I’d considered death to be something we could scientifically quantify. I guess it was the cynic in me coming out. Just because non-existence is the most probable, rational, logical and realistic result of death, doesn’t mean that’s the way it will be. Who can prove what happens after we die? An obvious question isn’t it. 

So while non-existence seems the most likely, it might not be the case. That, to me is awfully exciting. One’s imagination could spend hours contemplating the many possible outcomes of death, all more fantastic or horrible than the last. In expressing my excitement, don’t mistake this for suicidal tendencies. Just because I welcome the adventure death brings, doesn’t mean I want to go and top myself. I have a lot of things left to do and accomplish while my body still sends electrical signals. Not to mention, life is a pretty big adventure already. Look at it this way; would you start playing Assassin’s Creed 2 before you finish with Assassin’s Creed?

The religious types out there believe that through death, they can achieve paradise. I myself am not religious, but lets just pretend for a second that this is true. If through death, one can get to their interpretation of paradise, then what is there to be afraid of? Now the obvious answer is that religious buffs feel they have more to achieve in the material world before they venture into the spiritual one. It could also be the fear of leaving those they love behind. This is cause to be sad, but hardly fear. It would be disappointing not to do all those things, but compared to the alternative, I'd be absolutely excited!

Regardless, I don't think Heaven and Hell are all they're cracked up to be. Irrespective of what mono-theistic religion you follow (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), they all have some kind of after-life in which you can spend an eternity in happiness. Provided of course, you follow the stringent code of your chosen religion. Heaven and Hell are the same thing. Initially, the experience would be quite different, I'll grant. In Heaven, one would be free to do what they wished, while in Hell, you'd be a slave to the devil, doing his bidding as he wished. While these two realms seem quite different from one another, bear in mind, you're spending an eternity here. Would it be safe to say that in life, if you're exposed to the same thing for an extended period of time, it becomes a normality, and a sense of apathy develops? Just think about when you buy a new car. At first, it's an extremely exciting proposition, and you have an increased amount of endorphins released in your brain. However, as time goes on, these endorphins decrease, and your 'new' car becomes a normality. I believe Heaven and Hell would be exactly like this. An eternity of the same thing over and over again would be utterly mundane. I bet the people in Heaven and praying for a day trip to the hot spas of Hell.

All in all, death isn’t something to be afraid of. It seems most young adults fear leaving this world, but they shouldn’t. Death is easy, it’s hard for those you leave behind.

From the desk of 11214374: A brief insight into the human psyche

It is very interesting to observe how humans behave in the wild. Not “in the wild” in the bush/nature setting, but out in the open, in public. As much as we all consider ourselves unique, we seem to be the only ones who can differentiate ourselves from the rest of the population. If indeed we were all individuals, then tell me, how faces, of the numerous strangers you passed today, do you remember? Surely your eyes must have passed over dozens, if not hundreds of unknown faces, yet you can remember hardly any of them. The ones that you do remember would be connected to some event, or perhaps they had something uncanny about their appearance. The fact of the matter, to you the individual (ironic, isn’t it), everyone may as well have been the same person (although that would be a cause for memory, seeing hundreds of the exact same face).

Back to behaving in the wild. Take the train for example. In Australia, train seats are manufactured so that they can be turned around. They can either face forwards or backwards. The rational advantages/disadvantages of forwards vs. backwards are fairly even but when humans enter the train carriage there seems to not be a second thought about their preference of orientation. One time, I was on my way to university, and I entered an empty carriage. Upon entering this carriage, I observed that all the seats were facing backwards. Personally preferring facing backwards due to it’s many advantages, I took a seat. I proceeded to notice as the train progressed through it’s stops and the carriage filled to the point that no seats were vacant, that all the seats in the carriage had been turned to face the front, except my own. I smiled knowingly and went back to my book. The point is, this wasn’t an isolated incident. This sort of thing happens all the time. What is it that predisposes people to sit facing the front? Some would claim they feel ill when traveling “in reverse”. Call me naive, but it seems highly unlikely that a whole carriage-full of people suffer from train-sickness. I believe that this train example is a more meaningful as a metaphor for the human condition. People sit facing the front because they believe it’s the “normal” thing to do. Once a few people do this, everyone feels obligated to follow suit. Such is the reason you don’t remember the majority of those faces on your walk down the street. An interesting example of this is the Asch Experiment:

No one knows what they’re doing. No one knows why they’re doing it. Half the time they’re not even aware how they’re doing it. People just think it’s the “right” or “normal” thing to do and they keep walking. Blindly. Obediently. Ignorantly. Life is like a spotlight being shone upon you. You feel as if you’re the centre of the universe and spend your whole life only seeing what’s immediately around you, and what directly affects you. Someone should turn on the house lights.