Progress and Abnormality - A Love Story

To “act normal” is to conform to society and is relative. In a cannibalistic society, eating humans is '“normal”, but in America, no one would make such a claim. Acting normal is, quite simply, acting as one’s society does.

Most people would agree that being normal is a good thing. Society (the majority of citizens) after all, consist of normal people - why would someone yearn to be anything more than normal?

Though many people look at abnormalities as a bad thing. However, they are, more often than not, not bad at all. Einstein and Confucius were abnormal as were Gandhi and Beethoven. When one conforms to society’s norms, progress ceases. Progress is, by definition, a deviant act.

Following up on my previous blog post regarding history and change, if everyone acts normally then change will halt - and history will repeat itself.

To act abnormally is to break the shackles that bind one to society’s standards; it is in this act that people exhibit true freedom. If truth is to be found outside the boundaries of society, then one has the duty as a rational being to cross those borders.

Now, I want to just note that one can deviate from the norm and make society regress and not progress...

Do what is right, don't go down conventional paths, for it will be because of you that society puts one step forward.

Will We Ever Learn? – A brief investigation on whether the human race can learn from its mistakes.

“History repeats itself”. The quote has been used enough times to make me wonder: just why? Why does history repeat itself? Is it inevitable?

The first thing that must be examined is whether the human race, as a whole, can change. We know that humans, as individuals, can change, but does that mean that the human race as a whole changes? Not necessarily. For example, just because a machine is made of lightweight parts, it does not mean that the sum of the parts (the machine) is lightweight. A machine made up of 1,000 one pound parts would be pretty heavy (this line of logic has a special name, though the name eludes me).

This reasoning, however, would not apply if we were able to say that humans, as individuals, share the same properties as the human race. If such were the case, then, hypothetically, we would be able to say that the human race can change. I just have a problem with that rationale. Humans change within their lifespan, and once a human dies, his/her ‘changes’ are lost in the dust of his/her coffin – so once a whole generation dies, their ‘changes’ would be lost to humanity…There is one thing, however, that can prevent the human race from forgetting these changes…what’s that you ask? History.

Yes, you guessed right, the only way to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself is to learn about history itself. (I’m sure many of you thought about that conclusion already, I just thought giving my own little explanation on how to get there would be a bit interesting). I will remind you, however, that the answer depends on whether a human race as a whole can change.

The aforementioned answer, I presume, also sheds light onto why history is recorded at all. Do we record our generation’s history for our own sake? Or for future generations? Trick question. We record history for our own sake, but our ‘sake’ is rooted in the future generation.

What do I mean by that? Well most humans (and I would argue it is part of human nature to) desire immortality, or at the very least, have that immortality manifested in ‘our mark on the world’. Now, if individual humans are similar to the human race (as I spoke about earlier) then the human race will also crave that desire for immortality –aka to make a mark on the world. History provides the means for leaving one’s mark on the world.

Generations record history to leave their mark on the world (which, of course, would include their changes). By recording history they affect subsequent generations.

Out of the human race’s ‘selfish gene’ for immortality, we learn from our mistakes and progress (change) is made.

A Human Clone?...A New World Era?...

The year was 1997 and the birth of “Dolly”, the first mammal clone (it was a female sheep). Since then, scientists as well as laypeople have wondered: Does that mean we can clone humans?

Well we first might ask: why even bother with human cloning? What are the benefits? The first thing that comes to my mind involves the thing that humans try to avoid most. No, not your ex, but death.

Take this scenario: A newly-wed has their first child. At 3 months old the baby falls out of his/her carriage and dies on impact. Had human cloning technology been available, the baby might be able to be ‘reborn’, as some sort of twin.

But is it really that easy? No. Cloning technology is still in its infancy. Currently, only 1%-2% of cloning experiments produce viable offspring. Out of that small percent, 30% of the offspring develop some sort of disability. Experimenting with human cloning would mean killing numerous human embryos in the process. For those who believe life begins at conception, that would be considered murder. For those who believe otherwise, I guess they’d be ok with that.

Ok, so that’s that. Now let’s say that we, hypothetically, understood how to clone a human perfectly. Imagine what that would mean for our society…With genetic modification technology becoming more precise – who knows? Will we be cloning ‘perfect’ humans? What value will life have then?... This also reminds me of the movie The Island – needless to say, the movie is not a comedy…

I think we may be entering a new age of time. There will be those who believe science that should advance at any cost; and then there will be those who are afraid of what advancements in science may hold...

Welcome to a whole new world:

You got the future right there... Ok maybe not exactly, first minus the Yoda dude and then you have our future.

On an Inquiry of Prison Systems

The field of neurology is quite new, and it has brought some astounding discoveries.
We now know that a person's self control/will power is largely determined by his/her prefrontal cortex.

"Weak interconnections between the prefrontal cortex and the rest of the brain have also been observed in criminals, sociopaths, drug addicts, and schizophrenics."

A quick story to illustrate:
The perfect 4.0 GPA valedictorian at "X" University one day goes on a shooting spree and kills 6 people. An MRI reveals a tumor in the prefrontal cortex. What do we do?

Can we punish someone born with (or who involuntarily acquired) a "disability"? Maybe prisons should just be medical facilities?...

We all know about the horror that occurs in many prison systems. Is that really the way to treat someone who possibly belongs in a hospital?

All this begs the question: Are you at fault for your biological nature (even childhood nurture)?

But suppose then that the weak prefrontal cortex in criminals is due to a refusal to exercise control, and not an involuntary disability; what then?

It seems to be a paradox/self referential problem that will ultimately lead to the denial of free-will . If we believe in plasticity and the ability to willfully change, that would imply that 'you' do control your brain, and not the other way around - but how would that be possible if the nature of our brains control us? As that clearly implies that there is no free will...

So it's like you can't have it both ways, either:
A) the nature of our brains do not control us and plasticity allows us to change willfully.
B) the nature of our brains do control us and the only way we change our brains is by self-correcting mechanisms already in place in the brain, and not from willful change...

So who controls who? Am I my brain? Or something more?
The answer to these questions will provide us with knowledge on whether prison systems are a legitimate moral institution.The advent of neurobiology may be the death-blow to the current prison system. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that neuroscience will just reaffirm age-old beliefs on human nature. We will just have to wait and see...

Though regardless of what neuroscience will tell us, something must change in the prison system. According to the Florida Department of Corrections, it costs $55.09/day (about $20,108/year) to keep an inmate incarcerated. Though a medical facility may be more expensive, if the inmate is 'cured' (for lack of a better term) they can be incorporated into American society and contribute to the economy, not just suck money out of it.

I understand there are already makeshift medical facilities in prisons, but they do not work.
"650,000 people are released from the nation’s prisons every year... Two-thirds of those who come out of prison are rearrested within three years of release."

Reform is needed. It is not only the right the to do, but it will help make society safer and make our economy grow stronger.

We live in the 21st century. It is time for the prison system to catch up.

An Intro to Politics

As an Independent, I seek truth by eliminating the haze created by partisan ideology. Republican and Democrat bickering only create more confusion. In addition, labeling a person just restricts one to a particular ideology. I choose my ideology based upon observation of human nature and the true reality of the world in which we exist.

I am one who also believes that the study of politics should not exist in a vacuum. Politics, though just one single subject, should be analyzed from the lens of a Renaissance scholar, i.e., from a myriad of different angles. Politics must be viewed from an economic, religious, sociological, philosophical, and even neurobiological perspective.

Politics, first and foremost, revolves around people. As the complex humans that we are, we need to realize that one subject will not cut it.

How can one see this world's vibrant spectrum of colors when one's eye is trained to see only one hue?

What colors do you see? Most see the 7 colors listed: red, orange, yellow...But how many see the infinite colors in between? The key when approaching political ideology is to see the entire spectrum of ideas.

We, as analysts seeking truth, must recognize that when it comes to politics, the perfect political system may not be ideal for the imperfect world in which we live. After all, humans can act upon irrational suppositions, and a government must be ready to respond accordingly. The perfect government is one that is evolutionary, one that can adapt to the ever-changing and sometimes confusing world in which we live.

Was Adam Smith right? Not entirely; and the same goes for Karl Marx and the rest of the political-science philosophers, for no one particular theory can withhold the test of time. Unless, however, we have uncovered the objective truth of human nature, in which case, we have solved life's greatest mystery.