Halloween Rant (Wait for it...)

We learn more from our failures than we do from our successes but only as long as we're receptive to the lesson. If we allow our emotions, those irrational tricksters, to dominate our thoughts we’re sure to miss the lesson.

And that's the only true failure in life. If we don't learn from our setbacks then we’re doomed to repeat them. We're bound to continue blaming external factors when we ought to examine ourselves instead.

When we deny our flaws, we reinforce them. When we ignore them, we give them free reign to do as they please.

Ever meet a person who just can’t find a partner? Every boss they ever had was a jerk, they always have drama in their life, and nothing—no movie, TV show, book, song, whatever—is ever good enough.

This is the critic who has accomplished nothing noteworthy but loves to pick apart the accomplishments of others.

This is the kind of person who would most benefit from applying a critical eye internally; instead, they fixate on the flaws—perceived and actual—of others and perform all manner of mental gymnastics to protect their fragile egos.

They don’t see the common denominator in all their misfortunes. Through all the failed jobs and relationships, they never bother to ask: could I have done anything to prevent this? Is there something I could do to avoid these unpleasant situations in the future?

They may not be solely to blame but they could definitely avoid reliving the same negative experiences over and over again if they took some ownership.

Most people want others to change but refuse to change themselves. This is an extremely selfish and unreasonable way of looking at the world. I suggest that, in order to enact change in others, you must first enact those changes in yourself.

Imagine a giant, incredibly complex machine composed of 7 billion moving parts that are constantly interacting with each other. If you amend how one of those parts behaves you affect how all the other parts function, even if only incrementally.

The idea that changing yourself is detrimental to your integrity—that people should “love you for who you are,” that no one has the right to demand you to change—is your ego’s strongest self-preservation mechanism. You're not your likes, dislikes, or behavior patterns: those are just masks and costumes you wear.

Changing or stripping away the costumes doesn't actually change the person wearing the costumes.

On Halloween, a day when people are encouraged to dress up and pretend to be something they're not, I think it's important to remember what you are.

Happy Halloween!

The Meme Merchant

Russell Brand, Revolution, and Some Real Talk

It was an evening like any other. My wife and I had just finished putting our kids to sleep and we were settling down to watch some TV. I was scrolling through my Facebook feed when I stumbled upon this gem.

Anyone who has read my previous post on upgrading our government will probably know where I stand on the matter. I completely agree with Brand's laundry list of evils. Democracy has indeed been hijacked by big industry and politicians, whether willingly or not, have become their tools. The electoral process is farcical. Meanwhile the people have become disillusioned. About 50% of the population abstains from voting altogether. The rest continue to participate despite knowing that their votes mean nothing. They vote for the politician who makes the most appealing promises and when that politician steps into office and breaks those promises, they hardly blink.

When corruption and scandal become the norm, we know we have a problem on our hands.

Like Brand, I have never voted. Like Brand, my abstinence came from disillusionment, not ignorance. I've defended my stance of political abstinence many times before and sadly, the discourse always ends with the same, tired argument: "If you don't vote, you can't complain." My interpretation of this final argument is this: people only vote so they have the right to complain and gripe.

What a democracy!

At one point during the interview, Brand implored people to abstain from voting as a matter of principle. I once supported this type of political boycott  but as it turns out, I was terribly wrong.

Brand wants a revolution. Historically, this happens when people rise up and overthrow the ruling class. This type of uprising is violent and turbulent; more often than not, it cripples a functional nation. Is this the kind of revolution we want? Or is this the revolution of a crude, unrefined people? A desperate people without alternatives?

Aside from the potential for violence and anarchy, this type of revolution poses some serious logistical problems. Suppose we marched down to the parliament and demanded the resignation of our local politicians. In all likelihood, we would be choking on tear-gas within moments of our arrival, but say our politicians are surprisingly cooperative. Say they abandon their posts willingly, handing complete power over to us.

What now? I certainly don't know how to run a municipality let alone a nation. I wouldn't even know where to start. Should we hold an election to fill the vacant positions left behind? If so, won't we face the same issues of corruption as before? It's the system that corrupts politicians, not the other way around. I might promise widespread democratic reforms if elected, but once I get in power there is no guarantee I'll follow through.

The irrational mind--the one that takes over when we're overcome by powerful emotions, emotions like outrage over endless political scandals--seeks the most direct resolution. Unfortunately, the most direct resolution is rarely the correct one. More often than not, these "quick fixes" lack forethought or in-depth analysis. Brand's revolution, no matter the shape it holds in his wishful thoughts, is such a resolution. "Don't like the politicians? Let's overthrow them! Don't like the system? Abstain from taking part in it!" Do these sound like rational solutions?

As I said, I agree with Brand's assessment of the situation. His solution, on the other hand, is vague, short-sighted, and dangerous.

If we truly want change while avoiding violence and unrest, our revolution must be a peaceful one. But wait: is such a thing possible? Isn't "peaceful revolution" an oxymoron? In the past, physical violence was the primary resource of the revolutionary, but no longer.

Big industry was able to find loopholes within our political system and use those loopholes to hijack our democracy. They did not march into parliament with loaded guns and demand power: they used their resources--money, connections--to exploit flaws in our outdated system. There was no bloodshed, no violence. It was a gradual conquest which is only now becoming apparent to the masses. 

Big industry has its resources, and we have ours. The occupy movement gave us a name and it is apt. We are the 99% and ours is the vast majority within a democracy. No matter that this democracy is corrupt and dysfunctional; so long as we work together, the 1% cannot stop us.

We don't need a bloody revolution; we need a crowd-funded one.

And that means working within the confines of the system, not outside of it. Rather than abstain from voting, what we need is a coherent, united movement with a transparent agenda and as much support from the 99% as possible. This means working with people of divergent ideological stances--uniting liberals and conservatives, atheists and theists, and so on--to topple those at the top of our political apparatus. If money is the resource of the 1% then voting is the resource of the 99%. With enough votes, we can literally reshape our government, restructure our democracy, and finally give voice to those who have felt voiceless for far too long.

(PS. On Friday I'll delve into what such a movement might resemble, how modern inventions/innovations like Facebook, Kickstarter, and reality television can help us design a more functional democracy, and whatever else I can cram into 1,000 words. Oh yeah and here's the Russell Brand interview, in case you missed it. /rant over)

Evolution, Empathy, and Ethics

The idea that humanity is at its worst is strangely prevalent in today's world. By nearly every measurable standard available we are actually at our best but that doesn't stop the media and a slew of pessimists from raining on humanity's parade.

These doom-and-gloom types are fond of listing the massacres of the 20th century along with "the erosion of traditional morality," especially in today's youth, as proof positive of humanity's eminent fall. I normally counter these points with the usual rhetoric--that Hitler was no more evil than Genghis Khan, that the "traditional" morals of imperial Rome would put Miley Cyrus to shame--but today I'd like to concede to the Debbie Downers.

Humans may be enjoying the highest quality of life in recorded history but that doesn’t mean we should settle. There are many areas in which we can and should improve. Greed, irrational thinking, selfishness, and a lack of foresight are widespread. We’re obsessed with hoarding power, controlling others, and imposing our views on our neighbors.

It’s not really our fault. We were never meant to live in over-populated cities, surrounded by strangers. We started off in tribal groups and would have stayed that way if not for our big, sexy brains and one of its byproducts, empathy. Great apes are also capable of empathy but thanks to our self-awareness, memory of the past, and imagination, we humans take it to the next level. We can literally experience the suffering of others, especially when faced with poignant illustrations of their pain.

Without empathy, coexistence in large groups would be impossible. The move from small tribe to city-state to kingdom to empire is impossible without the ability to imagine the plight of others. Civilized humans realized the importance of empathy early on. Starting around 600BCE, philosophers and spiritual leaders in different parts of the world attempted to codify empathy into a rule or maxim. The results are known collectively as the Golden Rule.

One of the best known versions of the Golden Rule is attributed to the man himself, Jesus H.G. Christ: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” (Luke 6:31)

Or as we typically hear it: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Until now the Golden Rule has only applied for members of your particular group. "Love thy neighbor" originally meant just that: your countryman. If you were an Israelite living in Biblical times, you didn’t love your Assyrian, Roman, or Persian neighbors.

Globalization and a growing understanding of the human organism are helping to dismantle the myth of individuality. Take a step back, behold the whole of humanity, and it becomes clear that you are merely a component in a greater whole, a cog in some marvelously complicated wheel. We are all interconnected. Furthermore, our similarities far outweigh our differences. At the core, humanity is shockingly simple. We all need food water, and shelter. We all seek happiness while avoiding suffering.

If humans could reach some basic agreement--an agreement that transcends culture, religion, and ethnicity--our differences would become inconsequential. Free from conflict, we could actually learn from each other. Every ideology has some value. As for what that basic agreement ought to be, I see nothing better than the Golden Rule. It's found in every major religion as well as secular humanist philosophy It's simple and effective and promotes the good treatment of others.

The Golden Rule isn’t the end-all, be-all. It's less a commandment and more a rule of thumb. It doesn’t resolve every conflict but if everyone applies it regardless of race, creed, or ideology, it will help us find peaceful resolutions to our problems.

Noticeable change wont happen overnight, nor will it happen without resistance. The current power-structure benefits a small percentage of the population and unfortunately, this minority happens to control most of the wealth. Our division over petty differences only benefits the ruling class. Is it any wonder they work so hard at reinforcing outdated stereotypes? That they cherry-pick from scripture in an attempt to appeal to our superstitious hearts? These are charlatans, nothing more. Do not let them fool you.

I said previously that it was my goal to infect people with new ways of thinking. If I could choose only one idea to convey to you, it would be the Golden Rule. Imagine a world where everyone followed this simple guideline. Ideally speaking, there would be no murder, no theft, no rape. I don't expect that to happen but for every convert, for every person who consciously applies the Golden Rule to his or her life, there comes a trickle-down effect. You promote the Golden Rule by using it. You infect people with it, and they do the same to others.

And why stop at the Golden Rule? Why not take the next step? Karl Popper wrote: "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by." In other words, do not only abstain from doing ill to others but also seek to do good in their lives, whenever possible.

Try it for a month. Keep an eye out for those in need and offer your help. Give kind words and encouragement instead of criticism and judgment. Learn to cultivate positive thought and fixate on the good qualities of those around you. If you don't notice a difference, feel free to stop.

Few feelings rival that of helping a stranger without expectation for reciprocity. That is the very spirit of charity and no matter your opinion on the state of humanity, the world can always use more of that.

From Reddit

I love Reddit. It's the Hive-mind of Generation Y and my link to the events and ideas of the day. I often comment on Reddit, typically in a sub-reddit called DebateReligion. I get a lot of ideas for this blog on Reddit and I thought I'd share some of my interactions here.
 

Find below a question posed by /u/tarandfeathers (in bold) and my response. Thanks to tarandfeathers for thinking outside of the box and sorry for linking to my blog. My reply was TL'DR.





It looks to me like the discussions upon the existence of a certain all-powerful creator is not the central point of the problem that leads us towards pondering on religion, and the god topic simply misleads us from the main question.

Correct. The central issue has always been death. Primitive humans, the first animals to possess self-awareness, had to find a way to cope with the inevitability of death. They had to find something that transcends the natural world, something that is eternal and everywhere. God is primitive humanity’s brain-hack for coping with mortality and if you subscribe to meme theory, you see how far that simple idea has evolved. The main question—are we truly mortal or does some part of us outlive this shell—is usually tied to god and most people lack the imagination to pull the two topics apart and examine them separately.

So, please, anyone try to explain to me why do the majority of the debates on religion revolve on the problem of the existence or nonexistence of a god (or God, whatever) instead of focusing on the hardest and most important matter at stakes, i.e. survival of consciousness after the physical death?

God has, until now, stood at the heart of the matter because he (and his progenitors) have always been the source of eternal life/life after death. I say until now because I believe, much as you do, that we should not rule out the existence of the soul simply because we eschew the idea of God. Even if we do not have souls that outlive our bodies and consciousness is generated solely by the brain (an issue of some debate), we should still discuss the future possibility of multiple lives. Some people say we’re not far from being able to upload our minds into computers or robots and the staggering progress of technology lends credibility to such ideas.

What if there is a god but our consciences doesn't survive after death?

That would be exceedingly cruel and proof positive that God is a giant douche.

Or, what if there is no god but our consciences migrate to another plane of existence thereafter? What if the Universe (supposing it is not only what today's physics can accept it is) has evolved, all by itself, by means of its known and yet unknown natural laws, towards an infinite, rational order which allows us to live forever, evolve forever and in that final eternity reach a supreme, godlike, unified etc. state? (I don't want to look like making precise assertions on what could follow or if it will, I just want to point out the general idea).

Speculating is fun but this sub is the wrong place for it. Needless to say there is some support for a cyclical universe so it’s not outside the realm of possibility. There are also some people who believe we will one day evolve to be Gods ourselves by merging with technology and I don’t see why that can’t or shouldn’t happen provided we take some precautions as a species first. In the end though, we’re all free to believe whatever we want. Leaving the door open on the topic of eternal life can really help ease the anxiety of mortality: why should theists be the only ones to benefit from such a hope?

Or, what if God doesn't exist yet? What if we are his & her ancestors, creating it step by step, molding it with each of our thought, action, decision? And what if the morals is in this way absolute, as it contributes to creating a good, favorable god instead of an evil one (who in the end will take over the Universe as his/her own creation and behave as we had shaped him/her to)?

Of all your points this one is the most poignant for me. If we can create an AI that is vastly more powerful than the human mind, connected to all our electronic devices, and without physical form, doesn’t that sound an awful lot like God? Could such an AI offer guidance or make groundbreaking scientific discoveries? Might such an AI provide salvation for a fractured and misguided human race?
 

This "what if" string could go on, pointing that it's more likely that we will manage to meet (a potential) god by trying to understand the world and ourselves than the opposite. Now really, if I were God, I would like you people to focus your attention towards my realms rather than on myself. It's like an author who prefers reading his book rather than stare at his picture, considering he wagers more on his talent than on his handsomeness.

For those of us who have concluded that God doesn’t exist outside the human mind, I think understanding ourselves and the universe is key to our survival and prosperity.

In less words: why is the (non)existence of a god a more important issue than the (non)existence of an infinite Universe (which bears all the possibilities, including the survival of my conscience)?
Because people are anchored down by their fragile egos and attacking the Gods of others is the quickest way to validate our own world-views.

I Vote Moon-Base

According to the Mars One Project, more than 100,000 people applied to be on the first voyage to the red planet despite the fact that it's a one-way trip. Now I'm all for space exploration; in fact, I think that's humanity's only hope for long-term survival. We've all seen what happens when a big rock slams into our planet.

Aw fuck.

As far as I'm concerned, the faster we establish a foothold on another world, the better.

But why Mars? Or more specifically, why Mars first?

Our obsession with the red planet is ancient and well-documented. Before we knew it was just another planet hurtling through space, we thought Mars was a god, typically one of war, fire, or plain old destruction. In time we became obsessed with Mars as a source of alien life and, more recently, as the possible origin of life on our own world. We've sent a few machines to the red planet and recently discovered traces of water. And now there's plans to send a bunch of people over there by 2023 and make a reality TV show out of it.

The logistical problems of going to Mars are staggering. First there's the 9-month voyage through the freezing abyss of space and the effects such a voyage will have on the human body. Then there's the issue of what the lucky applicants will do once they reach the red planet. Where are they going to live? How will they adapt to the harsh conditions on the planet's surface? And once their supplies run out, how will they feed themselves? It's not as if they can start raising cattle or growing their own food. Nor could we send them supplies across 225 million kilometers of space.

If the Mars One project is starting to sound like a suicide mission to you, that's because it kind-of is. The human desire for exploration and discovery is admirable and, in my opinion, essential to the prosperity of our species, but it doesn't justify sending a bunch of people to their death.

Here's the thing, though: it doesn't have to be a suicide mission. Or at the very least we can give these brave souls a fighting chance at survival. How, you ask?

By building a moon-base.

M-O-O-N. Moon, bitches. We going.

I know it sounds crazy, but think about it. The moon is way closer than Mars and we've already been there (unless you think the Moon landing was a hoax). Why are we going from zero space colonies to colonizing Mars? That's like someone who has never gone for a jog signing up for a marathon.
Think of my proposed moon-base as training for the marathon. If we can’t manage to establish a foothold on our dusty old moon then we certainly aren’t ready to send people to Mars with no ticket home. 

Logistically the moon is a much better site for our first extra-planetary settlement. Its close enough that we could send help and supplies if something goes sideways. The moon may not possess the same mystique as Mars in our collective imagination but its settlement would be much more practical. It could serve as a dump for hazardous materials, a jump-off point for further space exploration, a site for testing dangerous new technologies, etc.

You may notice the liberal use of the word "we" throughout this post. According to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Moon and all outer space is the province of all humanity, and that's exactly who I am referring to here. Colonizing the moon ought to be an international endeavor led by private citizens, not governments. In this one thing I believe the Mars One project has got it right. Greedy capitalist governments are ruining our planet; we should strive to keep such outdated and dangerous organizations out of space.

Working together to establish a permanent human settlement on the moon would certainly bring us closer as a species and who knows? It might even help us realize that we are at our best when we cooperate toward a greater purpose, a greater good.

So yeah, Mars is cool and all that but if you ask me, I vote Moon-Base. Once we nail that, we can start planning for Mars.

And beyond.

Scumbag Brain

The human brain is a biological super-computer. It processes the data collected by your senses, filters out the mundane or unnecessary, then sends a summary to your conscious mind. Under pressure from external stimuli it dumps chemicals into your body, causing physiological changes. It stores memories, regulates bodily functions such as breathing and heart-rate, and manages motor-skills. Consciousness—the “you” inside your head—is also generated by your brain. 

We’ve long known that our brains define who we are but a growing body of work suggests they also define the world around us. Paired with recent findings about the brain’s ability (and willingness) to deceive and a worrisome picture emerges.

If the reality you experience is different from the reality I experience, how can we ever hope to see eye to eye? If your brain lies to you, amends your memories, and reinforces a false image of who you are, how can you truly know yourself, let alone anyone else?

By the time information reaches your conscious mind it has already passed through two filters: your senses, which have evolved to identify the parts of reality that pertain to human existence, and your subconscious, where all the unimportant details get dumped and traumatic memories get buried. What reaches your conscious mind is a highly refined sample of reality, and it’s likely quite different from the reality experienced by others. 

After this filtered reality hits your conscious mind it falls under the sway of two powerful forces, emotions and biases. Of the two, emotions have the ability to shape your reality most drastically. In short,

“Emotions are controlled by the levels of different chemicals in your brain. At any given moment, dozens of chemical messenger (neurotransmitters) are active. If you’re in danger, for example, your brain releases stress hormones that make you react faster. When the danger subsides, your brain sends out a calming signal that dampens the response.”

These neurotransmitters affect your perception, decision-making, and memory. Sound familiar? That's because it's the same effect as caffeine, alcohol, cannabis, heroin, methamphetamine, painkillers, antidepressants...the list goes on. Emotions--especially powerful ones--can have a profound effect on how we view people, events, and personal experiences. 

Biases, on the other hand, work more subtly. They work behind the scenes, a lens through which we regard reality. We are all biased whether we want to admit it or not. It’s impossible not to be. We befriend those who share their values and interests. We judge friends more leniently than strangers. We ignore or deny flaws in our children. Past experience and values come together in a flash, casting an often inaccurate light on the people in our lives.

Relying on past experience to make sense of the world is problematic in its own right because your brain is a big fat liar, constantly editing your memory to protect your fragile ego or enforce your biases. Nowhere is this more obvious than with eye-witness testimony. 

Psychologists have doubted the validity of eye-witness testimony since the early 20^th century but it wasn’t until the advent of DNA testing that they figured out just how unreliable our memories are. The Innocence Project, a non-profit organization committed to exonerating wrongly convicted people through the use of DNA testing, reports that eyewitness misidentification occurs in approximately 75% of convictions that are overturned. 

You should also know that your brain is capable of creating brand new memories. And just to make things interesting, it’s impossible to distinguish real memories from fabricated ones. Good luck with that.

 

Why is it important to know how your brain works? It all goes back to knowing the source. If your brain is the source of the reality you experience, shouldn’t you get to know it intimately? How can you accurately interpret your brain’s messages without first knowing how your brain operates? 

Knowing your brain’s tendencies toward deceit allows you to accurately interpret the world around you. It helps you understand the people in your life, their motivations, and the reasons for their actions and beliefs. It also helps you know yourself, something that, while seemingly intuitive, is anything but. 

When one acknowledges that we're all experiencing our own private realities in isolation, it becomes much easier to empathize with others. We’re all victims of our treacherous brains, each one of us convinced that his or her reality is in fact the objective truth and everyone else is ignorant, greedy, stupid, and so on. 

This fervent self-confidence is most obvious among the religious. How can any religion claim to be the one true chosen religion of God when there are thousands of other competing religions out there? These people are being deceived, by the leaders of their faith, their scripture, but primarily by their minds. This isn’t an attack on theists; quite the opposite, I think we can learn a great deal from them, both in their errors and successes. 

Don't want to be delusional anymore? Here's what you can do. Doubt yourself. Challenge your views of the world. Seek out new and radical ideas. Don’t allow your brain to dictate your reality. Dissolve your ego. Seek to understand others rather than judge them.

And most importantly, maintain an open mind.

Democracy 2.0

If you own a computer, gaming console, smartphone, or tablet, it's likely you've had to update your operating system in the recent past. It's inescapable. Information-technology is evolving at a breakneck pace and if we want to keep our gadgets performing optimally, we must constantly install new fixes.

For the most part these updates consist of minor tweaks. Someone well-versed in the original Windows operating system would probably have little difficulty navigating Windows 7. That’s because despite all its incarnations, Windows has employed the same basic framework since day one.

Similarly, the latest iOS offers a variety of new features that greatly improve functionality, but are any of them really necessary? Will my iPhone become obsolete without this update? Will I have to relearn how to use my phone after the update?

And it looks super sexy.

Of course not. We update and upgrade our gadgets because they have become an essential part of our lives. We depend on them for communication, banking, news, shopping, entertainment, etc. And since they have become so important we want to get the most functionality out of them. We want them to be intuitive and easy-to-use.

It is strange to me that we continually upgrade our smartphones without question but have yet to seriously consider upgrading the other systems that govern our lives.

Why haven't we upgraded democracy? Why haven't we fixed the glitches that plague our political system?

See what y'all did? Thomas Jefferson be spinnin' in his grave.

The American Constitution--the supreme law of the United States--was finalized in 1787. Consider the following quote: "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." Is this a radical idea or was the Constitution originally intended to be a rigid, unchanging document? The man quoted above surely had some insight on the matter. He was none other than Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers, and he never intended for the Constitution to outlive him and his colleagues.

In the year 2013, the American Constitution remains largely unchanged.

But that's the United States, not us! Surely we Canadians are not so rooted in the old world?

Actually we're worse. The Canadian counterpart of the American Constitution “is one of the oldest working constitutions in the world, with a basis in the Magna Carta” which was penned in 1215. From my best friend, Wikipedia:

The composition of the Constitution of Canada is defined in subsection 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 as consisting of the Canada Act 1982, all acts and orders referred to in the schedule, and any amendments to these documents. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the list is not exhaustive and includes a number of pre-confederation acts and unwritten components as well.

Don't get too excited: the Constitution Act of 1982 wasn’t a revision but rather a gathering of previously existing acts under one roof. And even if we had done a thorough review of our constitution in 1982 we would still be 30 years removed from said review. Are we to believe that our political system is perfect as is? That since 1982 we have learned nothing and developed no technology that could perhaps make our political system more effective?

Newspapers are crowded with articles about the latest political scandal. Rampant corruption, politicians breaking campaign promises, and governments enacting oppressive laws behind the backs of its people have become commonplace. Didn't we elect these people? Aren't they supposed to look out for us?

It's no wonder voter turnout is at an all-time low. Our version of democracy gives people the illusion of control, nothing else.

Once candidates are elected, they are liberated from promises made on the campaign trail and free to enforce the status quo of their respective parties. Political discourse is dictated primarily by lobbyists who represent the incredibly wealthy minority, the heads of industry who have only one item on their to-do list: extract more money from the walking wallets.

That's us, by the way.

Believe it or not, I don't blame our politicians for their dishonesty. The issue at hand is both larger and more complex than crooked politicians and the tycoons who pad their pockets. Our representatives operate within a system that facilitates corruption and nefarious deals. If anything, it is the system which has corrupted the politician, not the other way around. We can't really blame our fossilized political system either. A lot has changed in the past 30 years, let alone 800.

What worked back then clearly doesn't work now.

The view that nothing can be done, that it is impossible to repair the malfunctioning parts of our political system, is extremely short-sighted. "We've had monarchies and feudalism and republics and empires and dictatorships and communist-states and none of those worked!" some people argue. 

Modern democracies are not the end-all be-all; they're simply the best we've come up with until now. The same can be said of each political system listed above. At the time, each one was the best we had. Eventually we came up with something better.

What I am proposing to you is that we come up with something better and start treating our political system with the same importance we treat our smartphones. I propose that we wrest control of our nation away from the crooked politicians before it is too late and that we drag this democracy of ours into the 21st century. 

By "we" I don't mean Liberals or Conservatives or NDP'ers. I don't mean Catholics or Protestants or atheists. I mean we Canadians and, if we can get our shit together soon enough, maybe even our neighbors to the south, who have it much rougher than we do.

If we work together I know we can do better. I know that we can establish a system that is fair and balanced and without opportunity for corruption. We have the tools, the resources, the understanding.

Let's upgrade this thing. Let's get Democracy 2.0.

It may take a while to download and install but it'll be worth it.

(PS. I hate when journalists decry some great evil without offering solutions. They come in, stir the pot, get us all riled up, then walk away. Great help that is! In order to break this tradition, I'll be tackling the various flaws in our government as I see them and offering potential solutions. Our world is incredibly complex and changing at an alarming pace. Simple solutions just do not cut it anymore. The problems that plague our modern world are the branches of evil. There is no use in pruning them. What we must do is uproot the whole damn tree. /rant over)

I Quit

There's something disheartening about discovering that your ideas are not original. I remember the first time it happened to me. As a writer I tend to build my stories around an interesting premise. What if humans had risen to prominence while the five continents were still fused together? How would the Americas have fared without European involvement? What would Tolkien's Middle-Earth look like 1,000 years after the War of the Ring? I was describing my latest idea to a friend who, after listening to me patiently, uttered these horrific words:

It's already been done. 

I consulted Google for confirmation and was crestfallen. The similarities between my premise and this novel were uncanny. I felt cheated somehow, as if this author had invaded my mind and stolen my ideas.

My first instinct was to delete everything I had written. "What a shame," I thought. It had been such a good idea. No wonder someone else beat me to it.  

Oh well. Time to start from scratch.

That was my reaction after watching John Haidt's TED Talk, "The Moral Roots of Conservatives and Liberals," found at the top of this post. In his presentation Haidt dissects some of my favorite ideas with a skill and finesse I can never hope to match. The man is highly educated, a published author who has access to resources I can only dream of.

Why bother with this blog? There are likely thousands who share some facet of my thoughts and possess the resources necessary to deliver their message to the masses. People like Richard Dawkins, John Haidt, Malcom Gladwell, Jason Silva, and Ray Kurzweil reach millions of people. What's the use in writing a blog that reaches a few dozen?

No, I'm not quitting. Quite the opposite, I'm just getting warmed up.


There are few if any truly original ideas left out there. What we think of as new ideas are actually modifications of old ones. Take fantasy as a literary genre, for example. Even as a kid I noticed the stereotypes: brave knights, fire-breathing dragons, evil sorcerers, wise old wizards,  immortal elves, surly dwarves, green-skinned orcs--the list goes on.  Without Tolkien, very few people would know anything about magical rings, treasure-hoarding dragons, or heroic quests. The similarities between Tolkien's epic trilogy and every other fantasy book published since are far from coincidental. Authors fully welcome Tolkien's influence on their works. For a long time, these post-Tolkien authors made no effort to differentiate themselves from the man who inspired them.

Eventually, variations started to pop up. These variations--successful mutations of the fantasy gene, if you will--accumulated. Sub-genres like dark fantasy, sword-and-sandal, steampunk, and urban fantasy emerged. What better way to illustrate the evolution of ideas than to compare Lord of the Rings to, say, Game of Thrones?

Here is yet more convincing evidence in favor of meme theory. Tiny little modifications are made to existing ideas. Most are worthless but few prove valuable. Over time these worthwhile modifications add up and we find ourselves with a radically different idea than we started with. Remember, these are just shapeless notions manifested into reality by human ingenuity. Oh, the marvels!

As for the Meme Merchant, I'll stay the course. If I can contribute to the evolutionary process of ideas and maybe help a few people look at life differently along the way, I think that's valuable in itself. With your help, maybe I can pull together several ideas together and form something better than the sum of its parts. Not a new idea but an amalgamation of existing ideas. Sort of like when the Power Rangers combine their dino-bots into a gigantic, ultra-powerful mega-robot.

It's a MEGAZORD, for petesake!

Only cooler.

(PS. Even Tolkien's ideas were borrowed from the lore and mythology of the Norsemen. Furthermore, Richard Wagner wrote an epic opera about a ring so powerful it could rule the world in 1874. That's 63 years before Tolkien penned the Hobbit! Tolkien never denied Norse mythology's influence on his works; quite the opposite, he openly admitted taking many of his ideas from their pages.The lesson? It's not plagiarism if you tweak the details! /rant over)

The Intellectual Commodity--Part III

As of now we’ve established the importance of ideas as the building blocks of human works great and small. Their intrinsic value and effect on material commodities cannot be denied, nor can we deny that the marketplace of ideas is over-saturated. If information, knowledge, and ideas are crucial to human existence, and we are today overcome by a tidal-wave of data, how can we identify the good ideas from the bad?

Skepticism is crucial for qualifying conflicting ideas. Think of skepticism as putting an idea on trial. You would never expect a prosecuting attorney to build his entire case around the testimony of the accused and nothing else, would you? 

Think back to our crash-course on meme theory. Ideas survive, adapt, and replicate not because they are more valid than others but because they are good at surviving, adapting, and replicating. If we study an idea by itself we are not likely to obtain a fair assessment of the facts since its sole purpose is survival and replication. Just like a criminal facing capital punishment, ideas do and say what they must to continue existing. That is why good attorneys call a long list of people to the stand, from character-witnesses and eye-witnesses to experts in relevant fields. Each witness brings something new to the table.

In your mind's courtroom, you play the role of prosecutor, defense-attorney, and jury. As a result of

Try not to let the trial turn into this.

this amalgamation of roles, your job is neither to prove nor disprove the idea but rather to determine its validity toward your life. In 700 CE, Jianzhi Sengcan said: "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against.The struggle between 'for' and 'against' is the mind's worse disease." To successfully rid yourself of "for" and "against," you must first dissolve your ego. Take your pride and remove it from the equation. Approach the question with a completely open mind. 

Next, call your witnesses to the stand. The more the better. News articles, books, Wikipedia, documentaries, message-boards, personal experience. These testimonies will form the backbone of your decision, but only if you filter them through a final--and crucial--filter.

From a paper detailing the "Cigarette Controversy," published in 2007:

"In 1994, heads of the major U.S. tobacco companies testified before Congress that the evidence that cigarette smoking caused diseases such as cancer and heart disease was inconclusive, that cigarettes were not addictive, and that they did not market to children. Less than 1 month after this testimony, a box containing confidential documents from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation was delivered to the University of California at San Francisco. What was revealed in these documents was evidence that the tobacco industry had for decades known and accepted the fact that cigarettes caused premature death, considered tobacco to be addictive, and that their programs to support scientific research on smoking and health had been a sham (1-6)."

To recap: for decades, tobacco companies lied about the effects of their products and continued to sell cigarettes despite knowing that they caused a wide-range of health problems. The pertinent part here is that they hid this data, either buying the silence of independent researchers or funding their own pseudo-scientific studies to "prove" the safety of cigarettes. 

There is a costly lesson to be learned here. Knowing the source of the information is just as important as the information itself.

By qualifying the source of your information, you put the information into context. Would you take financial advice from a friend who is in enormous debt? Marriage advice from a life-long bachelor? Parenting advice from a childless aunt? You shouldn't discard it outright--after all, even a broken clock is right twice a day--but you would probably take such advice with a grain of salt.

Likewise, you should be vigilant when perusing the marketplace of ideas. Learn about your sources. Be on the lookout for conflicts of interest. Remember that people perceive reality through their own subjective lens, their views likely different from yours in some ways. Remember also that some people stand to gain or lose from the acceptance of certain ideas. Like the tobacco industry, these ones may resort to foul play in order to convince the unsuspecting. 

When you read an article like this, don't boycott TED and decry the organization as unreliable. Your broke friend might not know much about finances but maybe he has other wisdom to offer. Maybe he's great with the ladies or awesome at golf. Get to know your sources: only then can you truly assess the validity of their claims. TED Talks are still a valuable source of information, so long as the topic doesn't involve GMO's, food-as-medicine, or "pseudoscience." Any claims they make with regards to these topics should be immediately met with extreme skepticism. Otherwise, continue to exercise normal caution and you should be fine.

Smug bastard. Totally thinks he's better than me

In closing, I should note that most ideas are neither objectively good nor bad. In some ways ideas behave like stocks, their values rising and falling with the changing times. An idea's worth varies from person to person. Take divine rule, for example. The idea that a deity has chosen pharaoh Suchandsuch to rule Egypt benefits the pharaoh a great deal. 

The rest of Egypt? Not so much.