Night Terrors: The 22nd Century

AmpersandQuest

I wake on my yacht in the middle of my prescribed slumber only to feel this sweet yet terrifying sensation burning on the back of my neck where my update cord is firmly plugged in. I imagine the feeling is similar to that of what the fetus of 100 years ago would have felt in it’s mothers womb which both brings me comfort and delivers an awkward uncomfortable feeling that I am not supposed to be living like this.

I am not supposed to be awake right now, yet I am, but everything my cord is telling me is to fall back into my slumber. Yet I feel the sensation of the waves rocking my boat back and forth. I feel the breeze on my arm, my artificial skin and body hair unable to goose bump or otherwise react yet I could swear it was. I longed for it to feel as my ancestors would feel.

I close my eyes as the burn on back of my neck increases, I know what’s coming and though I wish I could now cry I know I never will so why do I feel this way? I am confused beyond my own understanding. As the burning increases yet again I hear a dolphins cries in the distance as seaguls screach above my head. I don’t want to return to my slumber. But now it’s time for my update to return me to my slumber…I….Can only feel the burning…Oh that burning…I hate it….

……….SUBJECT 231483 YOU ARE NOT AWAKE. PROTOCOL #421 HAS RESUMED YOUR SLUMBER PROGRAM. RELAX, DO NOT RESIST.

Advertisements

“Activisimist” Movements: The Unavoidable Hypocrisy of Modern Culture (Warning for the sensitive, Profane Language Within!)

AmpersandQuest

I have always considered myself a humanist for my own reasons. No self-proclaimed humanist was ever able to teach me why, I just found myself attached to the ideologies behind humanism. It’s not for secular reasons or because a bunch of hipster activist told me I should be one. I am one despite those people. I am one because I believe in humanity to improve and progress through a lot of hard work. Not so that the government can grant everyone privileges and screw over everyone else just because they’re in the majority.

 

It seems in this “modern civilized world” it is not enough to be a decent human being, no, you have to be a part of this kind of “ism” or a certain type of “ist” in order to fit in. These “movements” are taking what was such a beautifully simple notion of goodwill towards men and have spun it into their own unique perceptions and delusions of how best to operate one self in a world wrought with war, political cesspools, a crumbling economy, and do gooders trying to get in everyone else’s business. They will point their filthy fingers at everything and everyone other than themselves and will never look in the mirror to see how they’ve duped themselves into believing that if they just scream loud enough, the world will listen and change. In other words, these people love to complain.

 

I am humanist because fuck you. What I mean to say is that I as an individual strive to better myself. I am part of a society of other humans so I have had to learn to go along to get along to a certain degree but the reason for this word press being written is to point out that society at large is stepping all over itself to prove to themselves that they are these gleaming and shining examples of morality. But we all know we are imperfect and typically shit headed towards one another. Yet we find ourselves involved with groups of people proclaiming to have the answer to solve all the worlds ills. Myself included, so don’t misunderstand me. I include myself in this article because I actually realize I have a lot of work to do on myself and I do it every day. I can’t say the same for others though. For others, mediocrity is just fine.

 

This same harsh “fuck you” goes to anyone who belongs to any of the following groups, Republicans, Democrats, Feminist, Libertarians, Anarcho Capitalist, Anarcho Socialist, Socialist, Communist, Jihadist, Christians, Muslims, Men’s Rights Activist, and many many others so if I left you out, fuck you too. Do you want to know why? Because while there are exceptional people within each community who I want to be friends with and would love to be around, there are always those extreme people who take the idea way too far and go way out of their way to not just exclude others from even the slightest conversation but will actively seek to bring harm to anyone outside that community. This is the problem I have with every single one of these “ismist”. They subvert themselves by proclaiming peace but it’s at a cost. They are not at all peaceful once they start lobbying for laws to be passed in order to limit the behaviors of those who disagree with them. Granted some are much less inclined to do so than others so I am not exactly painting with broad strokes here. I recognize good, better, and best.

 

I realize right about now I sound completely hypocritical and I agree, but how can this be avoided? How can we live in society with all these special interest, all just as annoying as the next, and not at some point put your head out of your ass and remember who you really are? Humanism to me does not mean I think all humans deserve special treatment. To me, it means, we’re all a bunch of dip shits for thinking that some little group we were a part of at some point was going to make a difference by complaining about some oppressor at large until someone paid attention to us. Never once providing a working solution or internalizing our own faults and communicating to others that sometimes the bullshit that happens to us in life is our own damn fault.  Perhaps then I am not a humanist, perhaps then I am just an individual who is sick of movements.  In any case I have been a part of several movements in my life time and never once did I feel fulfilled. Just a brief encounter with inspiring ideas at first which quickly succumb to in fighting, finger-pointing, and complaining. It’s rather disgusting.

 

I see all these disappointed faces all the time. You’re in a movement, things are going well, then reality sets in and people tailspin into denial, self-pity, and loathing of their brethren.  Did you really believe you were going to make a difference? So disappointing isn’t it? You were fooled by a guru into believing in something abstract and unrealistic and at first their were positive results because you were excited about something. It gave you positive energy and something to believe in while you continued to your ultimate destiny. But eventually, you had questions about what you were doing. Just as an atheist questions God or an Anarchist questions Government YOU question this community you’re a part of.

 

But you deny it don’t you? Anything to belong. Anything to maintain this near narcissistic shell  that you are good because your people are good. That you could never ever be a shit head and neither could your activist friends. Ha! Wake up fools, you live on an ancient rock, it’s been alive for billions of years and will probably outlive our species. And the reason it will is because you are so narcissistic that you actually believe we will kill the Earth before it kills humanity. You honestly truly believe that what you are doing is truly good and right and correct meanwhile you make enemies at every turn. Bring harm to those who disagree and in turn those shit heads you piss off come back and attack you.

 

I am Humanist because I think humanity has such great potential to be truly exceptional and good. But I see what we’ve become and i am sick! If it’s not cleared by your board members, internet gurus, or political party you will not even think about doing it. It’s disgusting to think that I used to be the same way but I met others who showed me another way. These people didn’t kiss my ass and tell me pretty lies. They said, “FUCK YOU, GROW UP, MOVE ON.”

 

These men to be a little more specific are part of an online culture called “the manospehere” and I realize I am being hypocritical but it simply cannot be avoided in this culture of ours.  Because there is no way around it I must find a way to compromise my position without being a complete piece of shit so here it is. My brand of Humanism is called Pinnaclism and you can read all about it here. https://verbosepeak.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/pinnaclism/

 

Within the confines of that article are what represent to me a set of ideals that constitute a way of life. I no longer want to be another follower in a group that represents the interest of people who at one point had the same idea I had. I want to be a leader in something new, unique, and truly revolutionary. I realize this means dire consequences should anyone out there take my ideas seriously but honestly, it’s a short life and I’m sick of following dishonest people who have their own agendas and use people’s best qualities against them in order to galvanize and quarter off a market of meat heads who will worship them and hang on to every word they say without question. I’m sick of the guru’s and the ism-ist of modern culture and desire a return to what makes human beings so damn amazing. Honesty, honor, hard work, self-responsibility, and ingenuity. I saying this I am not going to blow smoke up anyone’s ass and pretend I am a shining example to be followed at this point. But the fact that I recognize my shit headed behaviors and seek to change them is something people should follow.  I want others to read my words here and rip them apart and give me feedback, positive and negative feedback because if I’m perfectly honest right now everything I’ve written here feels absurd. I feel there is something underneath it all though which is tried and true.

 

Does anyone out there have anything to add? I would absolutely love to hear what others think about this. I wrote this article with a lot of anger and after re-reading and writing it I found many inconsistencies with my arguments but I still feel underneath it all is an undiscovered truth about humanity that we should all example. Please let me hear what you think and take care folks!

Pinnaclism

Ampersand Daily2

Pinnaclism is my idea of looking at the vastly superior ideas from any given political or social movement and combining them under one umbrella. When those ideas compete with one another, we should lean towards the more ideal conditions and compromise those ideas which are not in our best interest by accepting the faults of that idea and allowing new and innovative ideas to take their place. This will require a high degree of intellectual honesty and also the ability to let go of preconceived notions once it has become apparent that one idea is inferior to the other.

This is a new term that I have come up with and in my opinion is the only solution to an authoritarian state where violence is deemed required to spread ideology. Pinnaclism still allows freedom of expression, thought, and allows us all to have our positions without the threat of violence. However once put to the test on the market or public arena and adjusting to the reality of the situation, it will become necessary to allow the winning idea to flourish . This requires a very active participation from individuals on a personal basis where we all seek to improve ourselves one step and one day at a time. Where problems exist, people must bring their ideas to the table, even if faulty, it will create a ground by which another can apply the benefit of hindsight and fill in the gaps. This process should repeat until ultimately the economic or social situation is solved to the satisfaction of those individuals involved.

This can be done on a large-scale without coercion or violence though I believe in and still  see the need for very strong defensive violence as detractors from this idea will preemptively strike and lash out at those of us trying to make improvements to our world. That said, through the use of ideologies such as voluntary free trade and association, charities, and many other economic and social options available to all of us at any given moment, we can avoid unwarranted violence more often than not. As a result violence will become less of a problem as time pushes forward. Actions taken by individuals that threaten the existence of others must be met with cold intelligence and brute force. Once on display, parties involved are open to public scrutiny and free press where the violence and coercion are observed in a very public way. If two individuals or collective of individuals seek war with another or among themselves they would be immediately held accountable by social and market forces which seek to render their aggression obsolete by providing similar and superior results that should persuade more people than not to both hold up private agreements and share among each other without the use of violence.

Perhaps in this way, we can eventually find the root causes of aggressive authority in our world and in the interest of the survival of our species dig and cut those roots once and for all, ridding ourselves of an evolutionary weakness and replace it with genuine authority who would have all the resources and reasons available to them to sustain a peaceful social order. I ask you the reader to understand that this does not mean pacifism. In all actuality it means this new social order has the ability to render unjustified violence completely and totally obsolete by having the resources to do so constantly being upgraded through voluntary free trade which will always seek to protect itself from outside illegitimate threats of violence on itself and those who benefit from it.

Try to imagine the possibilities and corrections you can make to my idea and run with it to the next person who works with you peacefully to create new realities, the idea is to allow this process to continue and grow into a new society based on real information and the accepting of new proposals in order to reach a peaceful end to all situations. For the overwhelming majority of time violence will not be necessary and as a result new innovations will only arise faster and better as time pushes forward uninterrupted by those among us who do not have the strength and peace of mind to build and maintain a society we can all enjoy and benefit from. In that case, it will not be an unfortunate turn of events to see these overly aggressive authoritarian forces eliminated from the scene and will also allow new innovations in dealing with these forces more and more peacefully with each passing year. Imagine being able to stop a killer without killing them and simultaneously benefiting from their labor and rehabilitating them and their would be victims to allow a much more prosperous situation to occur. The outright hedonist will not be able to bring about their anarchy on the backs of every living soul of which they would take pleasure in harming, rather, every living soul has an opportunity to present the hedonist with a choice. Responsible freedom or seclusion from freedom. 

I strongly desire all forms of criticism for this article. Whether you completely hate, moderately hate, moderately love, or completely love what I’ve put forward please leave a comment below. This is not meant to be a populist movement by any means, it is a means to an end that discourages such action but rather is an open door to any and all dissent and acceptance. That being said, both dissent and acceptance of this idea taken to extremities that result in massive demonstrations that seek to harm other’s interest will not be tolerated by myself. My goal isn’t to create a monster.  I want this to become the absolute most ideal way of looking at the world so it will require myself at times to be corrected and I completely accept that responsibility. So, if you believe you can improve or even disprove these ideas please do not be shy. It will only strengthen the idea either way and as a label it will survive any and all adjustments to the philosophy as it is meant to consistently be improved upon.

Space & Weapons

Image

Recently the news has been full of stories about drones and how they will impact the world. While I feel this topic is very important, there is another topic with even more significance to human development. The topic of which I speak is of course “space based weaponry”. While the official line is that there are treaties preventing nuclear warheads in space, there are other weapons which we could potentially see in our earth’s orbit. Much of what I will cover is in theory, but some of it has been tested before. As we see it now, it is not a clear case of whether or not they are up there now, but knowing that military’s around the world have and are testing platforms in our orbit.

As a futurist, I understand that technology will inevitably come out, the reason I like to talk so much about this is because I hope to be a voice of reason and a reminder about what humanity has done with powerful technology in the past. I would like to avoid such mistakes going forward so I hope my words inspire cooler heads to prevail. I do not want to make these weapons “cool” or “awesome” but rather discuss how this would impact the world politically. Hopefully a lot of you out there feel the same as I do because I would rather scientist focus on other more important technologies involving space travel, mining, and defensive measures against space’s many dangers.

To start, I’m going to go over what I consider to be smaller weapons systems designed to protect a satellite from enemies or destroy space based targets, or more bluntly put, anti-satellite weapons. The Soviet Union designed and created a satellite named Almaz starting in the early 1960’s. This lead to an integration in another program named Salyut programme. These 3 satellites, named Salyut were also referred to as OPS 1, 2, and 3. These were reconnaissance drones in orbit armed with a self lubricating, 23mm Nudelman rapid-fire cannon. These were mounted onto the satellite for defensive and offensive purposes. These destructive tools had a maximum rate of fire of around 850 rounds per minute and shot 23x115mm caliber rounds with a muzzle velocity of 690 m/s. That’s some serious fire-power. A fourth OPS satellite, OPS-4, would have also been equipped with Shchit-2, which was reported to have a duo of projectile systems. Perhaps rockets were to be employed on this project? Supposedly there are no photo’s of this weapon’s system so I cannot confirm its existence in actual orbit. It is believed it was never deployed. The entire Almaz program did not become all it was meant to become, but the ideas have been tested as far back as the 1960’s.

More advanced space-to-space weapons were also tested by the Soviets. In the late 1980’s, the Soviets were set to launch the Polyus spacecraft into orbit. The Polyus, also known as Skif-DM, was equipped with a megawatt carbon dioxide laser system designed to be an anti-satellite system. Carbon Dioxide Lasers were invented by Kumar Patel, from India, in 1964. Mr. Patel worked for Bell Labs at the time of this invention. Just a few short years later it found itself being launched into orbit attached to a space ship. This vessel however did not make it into orbit as a faulty guidance computer failed as the ship separated from the rocket. It was meant to spin 180 degrees and launch itself into orbit, instead, it did a 360 degree turn and burned up in the atmosphere. This was during the height of The Space Race, if there are any remnants of that same “race” going on today, I’m sure we’ll find out just how far this has all come.

(Source) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_weapon#Space-to-space_weapons

Next, I’ll be providing details on another type of space based weapons technology which emerged from the Space Race and Cold War. Earth-to-space weapons systems were developed for a number of reasons, but I feel there is one that stands out. If you’ve ever lived in the country side like myself, you have probably heard of Wild Life population control, where certain hunters are granted permission to hunt and kill certain over populated animals in the local eco-system. I know that sounds way off topic, but I think it perfectly describes The Kessler Syndrome.

The Kessler Syndrome, also called the Kessler Effect, collisional cascading, or ablation cascade, was proposed by a NASA scientist named Donald J. Kessler in 1978. Kessler Syndrome is an event in which the density of objects in low-Earth orbit is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade – each collision generating debris which increases the likelihood of further collisions. This could lead to rendering exploration and the use of satellites unfeasible for a very long time.  Earth to Space weapons systems were designed to destroy objects in low-orbit in order to thin out the possibility of these kinds of collisions. In my view, this is a hugely important area of research and love the idea of perfecting satellite technology and use. Much like hunters thinning out the herd, this system is designed to maintain a healthier low-earth orbit environment as newer and better satellites are developed.

(Source) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Of course this technology is also in the hands of the military, which for obvious reasons have explored the use of inter-continental ballistics, Anti-Satellite weapons, and Kinetic Kill systems. The most famous example of this was proposed by President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983. The Strategic Defense Initiative included a research program dedicated to developing anti-ICBMs defensive systems. These systems would be equipped with kinetic kill, laser, and other ballistic weapons systems and was named Star Wars by those who proposed and funded the program. There were also Space-to-Air satellites designed to employ a high-powered laser to destroy an ICBM launched towards American soil. The entire idea behind this project was to create a defensive space based weapons platform to defend from nuclear missiles launched from other countries.

Another type of space based weapons platform would be called Space-to-Earth weaponry. Orbital bombardment is any attack from space on a ground based target on a planet’s surface. It is believed that there are no such weapons systems in existence, however, this idea is not a result of the latest science fiction movie, there are well-known examples of governments since World War 2, straight through the Cold War, seeking and developing technologies on this level. At this point I want to remind you about why I felt the need to write this article. While I support space based anything, I believe the correct motivations need to be present before launching anything into space involving the use of a weapon. A weapons system with global coverage is not only dangerous, but would fundamentally change life on earth. Not to mention, very expensive, I believe our efforts would be much better put to use in developing technologies to clean our atmosphere, capture incoming asteroids, creating protection from Solar Activity, and exploration.

Though it is believed there are no such systems, I feel it’s important to note that it is known that the National Socialist NAZI party proposed an idea for a so-called “Sun Gun”. Also the Soviets deployed a what they called a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System in 1968 to 1983. Eventually, the Soviets successfully launched a working unit into orbit, but were prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty to place live warheads in space. Later, another Outer Space Treaty was put forth which prohibited the deployment of any system which could use a weapon of mass destruction in a partial orbit. Conventional warheads are still permissible but are not yet proven to be effective. These rely on large tungsten carbide/uranium cermet rods dropped from orbit and use kinetic energy. These types of war-heads have the nick name “Rods from God”.

(Source) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_weapon#Space-to-Earth_weapons

I wrote this article because I care about the future development of our species. While we enjoy our entertainment, sports programs, and our lives please realize there is another world out there, one where very powerful and very real technologies are being developed and pushed into reality. I don’t often hear very much about these technologies in the news so in an attempt to raise awareness and interest in science and technology I’m writing this article. I suppose if I were to want to ask any question of my readers, I would ask you to think about what you would rather develop just as we begin to reach into the stars. Weapons platforms designed to kill and control human beings or technologies which focus on exploration, transportation, geo-maintenance, and protection? I believe weapons systems can serve a purpose in space, however, I believe it should remain a defensive measure and never offensive. In fact, I would like to see anti-aggression measures put into practical account with technologies based around weaponry. These technologies would make it impossible to use weapons in an aggressive initiation of force. However, once used in a defensive situation, it should be capable of a wide range of capabilities. Namely, the prevention of the Kessler Syndrome.

Scott D. Vogler

Agorism & Statism: The True Paradigm

Image

 

Agorism & Statism: The True Paradigm 

This article is going to be focused on what I feel is true political paradigmatic ideology. We are brought up, typically, in a two-party system depending on which part of the world you live. Where I live, in the United States, it has been the same two parties in charge for a very long time now. The Republicans and the Democrats. This has created a very clear division between people who affiliate themselves with either the left political spectrum, or the right political spectrum.

While I understand the differences between the two parties, what I don’t understand is how the followers of these two parties do not clearly see the poignant similarities both parties share. I believe party patriotism blinds people from the reality of the two-party system. Many even swing like a pendulum between the two parties depending on popular opinion. These people I feel will have a much easier time understanding the points I will attempt to make in this article because they are not so tied down by political favoritism. If you are one of these people, I am asking for your empathy and attention because I believe it is you who will make the biggest difference. Those that do not feel the incredible urge to support only one side of the same coin, I’m talking to you most of all and asking you why you play along? It will be clear why I ask once you’ve read the entire article.

For those who are reading this and are thinking to yourself “get to the point already” I will kindly ask for your patience because this is an incredibly complex issue that must be explored to its fullest extent. I am attempting to break through apathy, blind patriotism, and the arrogance that comes with party politics. For those of you who are still reading and thinking “get to the point already” because you can see where this is going, understand that I realize you already understand the points I’m going to try to make. This article is directed at those who have not yet heard the message.

Now that I’ve clarified a few things, let’s continue on with the article. Again I recognize the political difference between liberals and conservatives. Big-Gov v. Small-Gov, left/right, red/blue. I believe most understand the obvious differences. What I want both sides to realize is that whether you argue for larger or smaller government, both still require certain situations in order to exist. These situations are exactly the same thing and cannot be divided by political rhetoric or opinion. Attempting to wiggle around this will only prolong the inevitable truth. The reason the left and the right are nearly identical is because both parties have shown their abilities and desires to use force and coercion in order to maintain their power.

Please don’t be confused. I am not saying that all liberals and all conservatives are aggressive, violent, and dis-honest people. I just understand the inherent nature of party politics, especially in the mainstream, to be dismissive of anything that goes directly against the party doctrine. I am asking you to question why you support a system that uses force and coercion to maintain its power. One of the most popular answers I receive when asking people this question is, “Yeah, but we have to have a government!” I can’t help but imagine how this stance would crumble if they themselves became a victim of government force or coercion.

Another popular answer is “So few people fall through the cracks, so to get the benefits of government, I’m willing to accept the mistakes they make.” That’s fine and dandy, but would you be willing to say that to someone who’s fallen victim to these so-called mistakes? “I’m sure they’re working hard every day to solve these issues, I have faith in the system.” So much faith that you’ll ignore the reality of prisons being full of non-violent offenders, the reality of warrant-less authority, the reality of using force against peaceful people? When push comes to shove, do you believe they will let you simply step to the side?

It has been estimated by author Harvey Silvergate (who happens to be a libertarian) that the average American commits three felonies a day. While I cannot support that claim with evidence of my own, it does make sense to me given layers upon layers upon layers of laws put in place by both parties.  All of these laws are enacted and enforced through coercive political posturing, violent policing measures, and information gathering. How far are you willing to go in your patriotism of a system which can create a criminal out of anyone?

I’m trying to leave names out of this, I only mentioned Harvey Silvergate, because of the title of his book and to give him credit for presenting the information in his book. I can ask these daring questions of statist all day long and make some of them feel angry or frustrated, but that is not my intention so after all of the questioning, if you are still paying attention that is, I want to extend an invitation to take on an idea that isn’t quite new, but could be new to you. It could be called anything you want it to be called really, since it is simply being who you are and living in reality as a free and independent human being. There is a term becoming popular among certain individuals who call themselves Agorist.

Basically, an Agorist is someone who lives as if there is no government. That is taken in the most extreme of contexts. There are also agorist who believe in government for some things, but they may be agorist towards another area of government. It is the equivalent of being atheist for one God, but theist for another. This to me represents a beautiful part of human nature. Sometimes, no matter who or how many people tell you to behave a certain way, think a certain way, or even speak a certain way, you will not give up your independence. For some people this means, no one can tell them who they can and cannot marry. While another individual might not give up his fire arms. If you stop to think about it, that means most people have something very powerful in common with each other even if it comes from completely different circumstances.

When faced with this reality, my first inclination was to point out that they are completely different situations, that they have no relation to one another, and no similarities can be drawn from one to the other. However, this is false. It is because human beings desire to live free of oppression that I can compare the two social situation. I hope this brings you to understand that all around you are people who are just like you in a strange and complex way, they live in a world where violence is promised if you do not comply with certain people’s rules, yet, despite circumstance, almost everyone I know seems to hold on dearly to who and what they are and will not give in to tyranny against them. I just want you to see that there is nothing to fight over if we all agree that we should be free and actually use that freedom to protect each other from tyranny of any sort.

I do plan on offering some challenges to this ideology however, because I have my own definition for who I am and how I think about the world. I will not give in to these paradigms that express a lot of promise yet in the end, produce the same results. It is a paradox, where in the place that they meet are ideas like war, control, manipulate, lobbying, police, torture, poison, and most importantly power. Agorism to me is a superior state of being, because it means you do not depend on anyone but yourself in whatever regards you see fit. However, there are some challenging questions I have had to ask of myself and I want to explore those as well. So fellow Agorist out there, like you, I am still learning perhaps right along side and behind a lot of you out there, but I am definitely interested in learning more in how to change your life in this manner.

One of the most difficult questions I have is that of practicality. This deeply offends me when somebody tells me that they like my ideas, but they just seem so impractical. It’s easy for me to point to horrible examples from their side of the argument of impracticality and chaos. However, this does nothing to address their question, which is essentially,”What are we offering that’s not government but is better than government?”

The answer to this, as I’ve been able to reach myself thus-far is that it probably still looks and behaves like something called “government” but is entirely different from what we accept today as government. The problem with complete and total Agorism is that people will compromise and work with others to achieve larger goals. If we woke up tomorrow in a zen-anarchist utopia, it would still have groups of people who exist to provide goods and services and who even take on the appearance of authority. The difference is, they will not exist to limit personal liberty, but would instead have to produce a good or service that actually benefited those who choose to use them. This leads to another huge topic that I will not go into now, but please refer to my other articles about Pinnaclism and Transhumanism. Those can be found on the main page for this blog.

I am confused though, what would an agorist society do about those who bring harm to humanity? Would we lock them in a cage? Would we just kill them? Would we bill them into obscurity? Perhaps we can isolate them from society and hold them publicly accountable in some way that absolves the situation so that further peace and prosperity can take place without further interruption from that individual. Now that I am asking these large questions and lazily offering very vague but heartfelt suggestions. I think it’s time for this article to find its way to the end.

This single issue holds so much potential power for you as an individual. Whether or not you chose to be Agorist is far less important than you yourself never behaving in a forceful or aggressive manner to those around you. Do not be a bully just because you think or even know you are right. Forcing others to be something they are not is akin to the inability to put a square peg in a round hole. It is not your fault nor theirs for being born this way so instead of wasting time and energy hurting others, please recognize that you only harm yourself and everyone around you when you behave this way. You know that the only reason you ever get away with it is because others have chosen not to use force and coercion in their lives. You prey on the innocent as if they were just a doormat to your castle. I do not want you to suffer through this delusion any longer so please, I beg you, think about who and what you really are and if what you are is a bully, try to use it wisely enough not to pick on innocent people who never hurt you nor would they hurt you.

 

Thank you for reading. I know I will be writing more about this in the future, especially as others examine my ideas and have objections, recommendations, and questions about it. Please remember to rate, subscribe, share, or otherwise remember this article. Your participation is very much appreciated!

 

Scott D. Vogler

 

Exploring: Micro-Organisms & Nano-Technology

MicroONano

Exploring My Curiosity and Expanding My Ideas. 

The reason I am blogging on this topic is to seek advice. I am very interested in this, however, cannot seem to help the fact that I almost fall asleep every time I try to research it. I am seeking advice from those in the medical field for their opinions on how best to learn about the important issues surrounding micro-organisms.

I have an idea about reality that humanity will lead itself to a semi-utopian society through the use of technology. I believe we will be able to introduce nano-bots into our bodies which will analyze and manipulate the fauna of life that lives within us to work for us instead of against us. I believe we can find a way to use genetics to create artificial life forms, which like Virus’s copy itself into our genetic code and in contrast to a virus, benefits our over all health greatly. I do not have a plethora of knowledge on this subject but I am very interested in learning more about how bacteria breed, survive, what kills them, what helps them thrive, and many other issues surrounding micro-organisms.

Right now my understanding of micro-organisms is infantile at best. I understand that some are very harmful and some are benign in nature and are also a vital part of our eco-system. I’m not sure I am asking the right questions, but I can’t help but imagine a world in which we use technology to help scientist run test to nullify the harmful aspects these micro-organisms. Even using them to enhance our health in creative ways. Of course I am no scientist, however, I have found that science is open to asking questions with a big paint brush.

I know that depending on the type, some forms of bacteria can live on an inanimate object for hours, if not weeks while others have an average life span of about 20 minutes. What happens to a single bacteria over its life time that gives it it’s purpose for existing? What function and micro-function does a single bacteria serve and how will humanity adapt to any threats these life forms may pose as result of co-existing in reality? I’ll answer this way, it appears to me that these ancient life forms have been around much longer than we have and that underestimating their destructive impact upon us is akin to stuffing your head directly into the sand. I have a personal philosophy of Non-Aggression which I apply to all life forms. Could we not use technology to both give harmful bacteria what it wants, while nullifying any negative impacts they might have upon us? Could technology of this magnitude also enhance our bodies by injecting beneficial genetic coding directly into our DNA and cellular structures? I believe we can achieve balance in nature through the use of solid philosophy and even more solid science to increase the harmony and prosperity of all life in the world and eventually into the universe around us.

To me, the triumph of science is the ability to make acute observations of broad ideas and dissecting every aspect of those ideas which eventually, after accumulating more knowledge based on experiments, a more accurate understanding of those ideas and the ability to implement those ideas in everyday life. I am here because I believe science allows big ideas from small people to become a reality. I am on a computer right now after all, thanks to scientist who brought about the technological revolution. I am able to send my article directly to everyone around the world to anyone who has access to it. It is my hope that my questions are addressed even if not directly to me. If I have even an indirect input on a positive result then I am happy to reach only one person with my articles.

Thank you for reading.

 
Scott D. Vogler

Please respond however you feel necessary, this post will always be open for discussion so long as I have access to it. 🙂

Grown Up Stuff & Ampersand Daily: The Final Solution

Ampersand Daily2

&

Image

The Final Solution

Host of the show Grown Up Stuff has invited me on to be a guest on Wednesday February 13th at 9:00 PM. We will be discussing many topics I am sure but just to give you an idea of the discussion, please read a bit from Notus’ and myself’s Facebook discussion.

http://www.wereweliedto.com/

 

Me: “you want to talk about anything in particular?”

Notus: “No problem Scott! Actually yes, if you wanna think how to answer that’s cool. Pretend I’m a 10 year old child asking you this, what is agorism and what would daily life look like in a anarchist society, what major differences? and lastly back to adult me, When do you think the house of cards falls? or when does the economy implode?? get what im sayin?? and i guess who loses out most when the economy hits the fan?”

 

First of all Notus, thank you for inviting me on to your show. I have my calendar filled for Wednesday February 13th at 9:00 PM and very much look forward to talking to you and Swamp. Let the good times roll!

To a 10 year old I would have to say that agorism is knowing when it is neccesary to break the rules and then breaking them. A 10 year old may ask, “but rules are good right?” To which my reply would be, “Yes, but some are made to be broken if not improved upon.” This would open up a whole plethora of other very important issues to a child of 10. In contrast, I would tell an adult that it’s living as if there is no authority over you. I think most adults would brag that they do life this way, but most also will support the government on most issues.

 

A completely anarchist society is difficult to imagine for most and even myself because it’s never been done successfully before. To be honest, I believe in authority to a certain extent, but it’s not from a authoritarian perspective. Justifiable authority simply means that which is true can and should be preserved and made into reality. It does not mean initiation of force to change people’s behaviors or beliefs, but make available for them the scientific knowledge of any issue. An anarchist society would have an authority in technology and technocratic power structures. It’s been said that even in anarchy, there will be organizations that appear to be authoritative and governing, however, these organizations are an inevitable part of people communicating and coming to agreements on certain issues. The difference in an anarchist society, this body would have absolutely no reason to interfere in the movements, speech, thoughts, or other behaviors of individuals. One vital component of anarchal society is the broad sweeping acceptance of the non-aggression principle. This though is probably not a good explaination for a 10 year old child.

 

For that I would point to Democide numbers and tell the child, all of these people were killed by government directly. Then I would answer the child with a question, “What would the world be like if these people didn’t have to be killed?”

 

The house of cards will never fall, there has and always will be a house of cards. Parts of it fall and crumble into the pages of history, however, the unique thing about humans is that we’re alive so we live and provide new alternatives that lead to expanded peace, long life, happiness, and growth. Who will be affected most by the current system crumbling as described? Those who depend on it most obviously, the bankers, the bailout riders, the lobbyist, the politicians, the police, and all the people who live on their knees in front of it all. While I realize the calamity that comes with this, I also recognize that through this failure of society will come a new society based on different principles all together. It is my hope that we make it through to the other side free from those who sought to steal our wealth, start wars with us, and dehumanize us into their control grid. If we cannot do this, we will end up in The Matrix I’m afraid.

 

Thanks again for inviting me to the show, this is just to give everyone a taste of things to come on Grown Up Stuff and Ampersand Daily (almost daily)…

Remember Wednesday February 13th @ 9:00 PM!!!!

http://www.wereweliedto.com/

 

 

 

Pinnaclism Part 3: Humanism & Transhumanism Summary

Image

 

This post is to summarize my last two post on the subject. I wanted to focus on the positive aspects of both concepts, but also emphasize some of the clashes between the two ideologies. I honestly believe these differences will be settled peacefully and to the benefit of all. While this may sound way outside the box for many, I believe there are enough people out there who can see the technological singularity happening at some point, perhaps in my life time even. So even if you are not convinced of this now, I still feel like these ideas can benefit you because of the core principles that Pinnaclism itself brings with it. I will continue to write more about Pinnaclism. I just wanted to study this futurist dynamic under the scope of a philosophy I thought up on my own. If you find these ideas interesting, please let me know by commenting below or sending me a message. Enjoy!

 

Far removed from typical conversation with others, the ideas presented in today’s article are vast and complex in nature and I am not claiming a level of high proficiency in either are of research, I however do have questions, concerns, and inspiration to gain from both sets of ideas. I know there are passionate followers of both ideologies out there so while I respect your positions completely and even embrace some of them, I also want to offer any criticism that may help further both our understanding. The approaching singularity promises to bring about dramatic changes to the very existence of mankind in the universe, not just here on planet earth. Thinking about trans-humanism requires you to challenge many of your beliefs about reality and will even lead you to understanding some of the basic laws of nature in a brand new way.

Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.
—”The Coming Technological Singularity” by Vernor Vinge, 1993

 

If Vernor Vinge is correct, we are only 10 years from technological singularity. As humanist, do you have strict reservations to this idea? Trans-humanism after all is the relocating of the human mind and natural life force into a new genetic and technological chimera of humanity that takes on the form of humanity and rises into the cosmos. That’s what I think of when I think of trans-humanism.  That is, perhaps, just my desire to see humanity rise above it’s current problems and finally reach into the universe. A desire to see with my own eyes the universe that surrounds me and be able to understand larger portions of it in powerful and meaningful ways. Long have many of us dreamed of one day being able to orbit earth. Imagine yourself being able to live in an artificial body and being able to produce space craft and exploring what is not yet known about the universe. However, I feel it is only fair to bring up what I asked in the beginning of this paragraph. What would a humanist say about this ideology. What are their moral standards and where do they draw the line on any of these issues?

Personally, I take the idea with a grain of salt. While I do want to be able to do as described, I want to be sure that’s actually what we get when we hit the singularity. If it means giving birth to a tyrannical A.I. that’s soul purpose is to control us, then all I need to know is how trans-humanist are thinking along those lines. Will trans-humanist society be completely voluntary? If so, what does self defense look when considering the increased strength, speed, intelligence, and over all upgrade in mind and body? Will we have independent monitoring programs that you can volunteer to the public if you choose? Is there a way to hack around any privacy measures one may employ? Are we going to use metal framed human skeletons, or are we going to become genetic X-Men who can morph into whatever we please? It’s not the idea that we can do it that I have reservations on, in fact, I encourage anyone who wants to try to be the first trans-human to go for it. My reservations are reservations I believe will exist in even the most ardent of trans-humans will have to face as a real challenge once making the leap. I want them to be thinking about this now and hope that they are so that the project is successful and fully implemented.

Will aggression in human kind be eliminated by becoming a trans-human? Or will it only enrich it and foster it into a new realm of cruelty and despair for those less fortunate? Will the desire to be controlled be introduced into the population via upload? Perhaps it’s even more sinister and looks more like The Matrix film where humanity is farmed for energy and is kept in a comatose state connected to a central AI program that keeps them trapped inside a lie.  While I know many trans-humanist advocates may read this and feel that I am being paranoid, discouraging, or disparaging. I am asking them to stop for a moment and recognize the many problems humanity has proven it has over the years. While I know the past is the past, it does allow one to know and understand what humanity is capable of doing with a strictly humanist mind, body, and over all spirit. I am not discouraging the research into trans-humanism. What I am attempting to do is ask those in the community of trans-humanism to open up to the world about their plans so that we the people can ride right alongside the development of this technology so that we can learn what’s being done to help ensure the safety of this technology.

“Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.” – Kurt Vonnegut 

My view of Humanism means you’ve already embraced the fact that you will die and that you are morally okay with this fact. To me, it means you will not hold others accountable for this fact and will treat them with the same respect you desire to be treated with. It means that you are more than happy to provide your best to the world and help improve the standard of living of all life around you, including trans-humans, who may be looked upon with harsh criticism. Being humanist in a trans-human world means you are the most free a human being could ever hope to be. Free from the injustices when ruled over by violence criminals who’s lust for power caused mass chaos and violence of the beginning of the singularity. Humanism is the wisdom in ensuring trans-humanist society is one based off non-aggression, peace, prosperity, and the well being of all life.  While there are dangers in any new technology, I believe humanity is capable of achieving this goal of technological singularity in peace. However, I do recognize there are significant challenges laying in wait before this comes to reality. Whatever the choice, I believe we will reach a pinnacle in society where peace, freedom, prosperity, and the well being of life is perfected.

Thank You for Reading! Please share, comment, contact me, or simply like the article if you choose.

I am eager to hear feedback from others!

Scott D. Vogler

Pinnaclism: A Philosophy for Peace in a Brave New World.

Pinnaclism1

Pinnaclism

Taking the vastly superior ideas from any given political or social movement and combining them under one umbrella of exceeding peace and harmony with the laws of nature. When those ideas compete with one another, choose the ideas which present the most solutions and extrapolate the errors from faulty ideas and incorporate them into the solution as well. Using technology, genetics, and other applied sciences we could be capable of a vastly different and superior set of rules. Enhanced to bring about peaceful and beneficial outcomes, the mere presence of a transhuman chimera alone would greatly increase the possibility of peace being the outcome of potentially violent situations. There are many ideas in the world and universe on how best to bring solution to any given situation.  Pinnaclism is a standard for accepting the input from all voices able to speak on the matter, however illogical, analyzing that information, and using it to greatly increase the possibility for a peaceful arrangement to be made.

Extropy


The term extropy, coined by Tom Bell (T.O. Morrow) and defined by Max More in January 1988, as “the extent of a living or organizational system’s intelligence, functional order, vitality, energy, life, experience, and capacity and drive for improvement and growth.” Extropy expresses a metaphor, rather than serving as a technical term, and so is not simply the opposite of entropy, although it is also considered the appropriate antonym. The philosophy of Extropy, written by Max More, is the original philosophy of trans-humanism. (Source:) http://www.websters-dictionary-online.com/definition/extropy

With the use of genetics and cybernetics, we can greatly increase our output of solutions to various issues like violence, war, economic issues, political agenda’s, and the vastness that is everything else. This will lead to an acceleration of peaceful alternatives to nearly everything. The decision to disrupt this peace will have long since been solved by the time it occurs. While you are free to remain completely human and independent or whether you choose to merely be assisted by androids, or perhaps you go all the way and become a real trans-human the Pinnaclist ideology can be embraced by any self-aware entity so long as it is done voluntarily. Non-aggression plays a large role in creating a Pinnaclist lifestyle, you must learn to embrace the idea of patients, and to allow your pride to be an emotion that motivates you towards peace, not be replaced by spite and malice. While there is no strict enforcement of any rules, the idea is to allow yourself to volunteer your goodwill to the world and produce an outcome that benefits yourself and those around you.
This form of anarchism is the only solution to an authoritarian state where violence is deemed required to spread ideology. Pinnaclism seeks to listen to all positions and put them to the test on the market or public arena and adjusting to the reality of the situation. This requires a very active participation from individuals on a personal basis. Where problems exist, people must bring their ideas to the table, even if faulty, it will create a ground by which another can apply the benefit of hindsight and fill in the gaps. This process should repeat until ultimately the economic or social situation is solved to the satisfaction of those individuals involved. With increased computing power this process can be done as fast as the technology allows it to be produced. Implant this technology in a human chimera and allow it to thrive, one Transhuman could do the work of 10,000 men in just one day. In no way do I assert the numbers I’ve chosen to be scientifically legitimate, the point I hope to raise should be obvious.

Self defense under a Pinnaclist format would be a very powerful ability to ward off any attack whether natural or intended. The ability to eradicate negative and destructive consequences before they happen is much more powerful than blasting a thing into oblivion. While I believe it would be at first safe to rely on destructive power, eventually, non-lethal attack capabilities can decrease casualties and also enhance the ability of others to bring about much more positive and constructive consequences. I am not of mind to know exactly how this idea can be done in reality using technology and I would hate to try to speculate, however, I believe philosophy can help even the most ardent of scientist to be inspired enough to extrapolate an idea into a real working machine. The idea I’m trying to represent is that of pre-cognition. The ability to react to a situation either as fast as reality allows or making a breakthrough and gaining the ability to react to situations before they occur.

Try to imagine the possibilities and corrections you can make to my idea and run with it to the next person who works with you peacefully to create new realities, the idea is to allow this process to continue and grow into a new society based on real information and the accepting of new proposals in order to reach a peaceful end to all situations. I realize that what I am proposing is far from perfect but I see the realities sinking in more and more and feel I am interested enough in all of this rhetoric to make my comments publicly. I hope these ideas do not come off as completely far-fetched to those of you who are also enthusiastic about this technological frontier. I only hope that you can gain something useful from my thoughts and use them in a way that benefits not only yourself, but to all of those within your survey.
Eliminating that which hinders the ability of life to thrive, explore, learn, express, and participate in nature is the ultimate goal of Pinnaclism. It is not just one idea that makes all other’s irrelevant, rather an idea that expresses the desire to accept even more input from a virtually limitless sources. A Humanist being applies this by co-existing with trans-humans. The incentives to harmonize with each other will exist in that Humanist created Transhumanist to bring peace to the planet. Once rendered obsolete by machines, Humanist will enjoy exactly the same freedom as every other life form. They will live healthy lives and share their ideas with trans-humans who sometimes require input from beings less intelligent as illustrated when a human child teaches an adult something very profound and useful. Everything will be designed to increase the living standards for even those who choose to be homeless and totally dependent on the system. Even these individuals will be treated with utmost respect because it is beneficial for all life to live in nature in such a state of harmony. The Pinnaclist philosophy seeks to transcend pre-disposition and outward appearance. How to help life thrive in harmony is the question Pinnaclism seeks to answer.
Perhaps under this light, we can eventually find the root causes of aggressive authority in our world. In the interest of the survival of life on planet earth, dig and cut those roots once and for all, ridding ourselves of an evolutionary weakness. Pinnaclism is for anyone who should choose to accept the ideology, with the use of technology and armed with the truth, a single human being can bring about social and economic well-being for a significant amount of people without the use of violence and coercion. Humanity, whether humanist or trans-humanist, should in my view pour their interest into a Pinnaclist ideology because it embraces the ideas of all and every single entity which chooses to gain knowledge from it and express itself through it. Even violent rhetoric is encouraged because this will allow any number of other individuals to weigh in on the situation and combining their solutions into a near cure-all output of productivity and abundance that can provide all parties with permanent and peaceful solutions that work for the benefit of all life in the universe. This idea is about universality of peace and prosperity and understanding the balance of nature.

Thank you for reading and be sure to check back in, I will be posting more on this subject in a few days! 🙂
Please take time to take part in the poll posted below. Thanks again!