Star Trek and the Real Future

I recently decided to watch the original Star Trek: The Motion Picture again. As a big fan of sci-fi and the future, I have always enjoyed Star Trek. What really amazes me about this show and many other modern sci-fi TV, is that in its portrayal of the future it totally ignores any potential change in the human mind and therefore in human conduct. What is even more amazing is that this was not actually true of the original Star Trek series. It aired in the 1960, a time of deep social strife when segregation of government-enforced racism were still the norm. And what we saw among the multi-racial crew of the original Starship Enterprise was the total absence of any racial discrimination. The message was clear: In the future such irrational discrmination will not exist. But with later series this character of Star Trek largely disappeared. We saw regular modern people using amazing futuristic technology, but they were still just our normal average Joes. They thought and behaved like we would think of behave in the modern world. In the movie Doctor McCoy makes references to spanking children - something I think will be universally recognized as a type of child abuse within the next few decades. Furthermore, it is easily inferred from the conclusion of the movie that human emotions are something that surpasses and improves on logic. There seems to be a fully accepted premise that the universe can be grasped better using some other sixth sense which has nothing to do with reason and empiricism. In face, Earth is saved by the very existence of human emotions, when the gigantic alien computer which was going to destroy Earth fuses with a human and evolves to become some higher being.
And this is, of course, another symptom of the age-old "fear of machines", which science fiction has been using as an apocalyptic vision scarcely less often than the "fear of alien invasion". Both of these scenarios are highly unrealistic and logically problematic. But let's look at the very nature of man versus machine. People seem to think that machines are some cold and evil things (because they have no emotions and no 'moral standards') which rely purely on mathematics and logic - i.e. a supercomputer is the perfect Benthamite utilitarian. This is not the case, however. Machines are actually made in our image. Human beings use logic and empiricism to get by in their everyday life. All other superstitions are 'emotions' are either reactions to logic and empiricism, or they are ways to explain something that logic cannot yet explain. Machines are kind of like children - they don't create strange explanations to problems they can't solve, they simply ignore those problems as unsolvable. Our computers are not some seperate sort of creation, their programming is based on observations about the real world and it reflects our own brain activity.

All discussions of futuristic scenarions in modern discourse and popular culture are woefully ignorant of the concept of Social Darwinism - the fact that our ideas and knowledge (and therefore conduct) continually evolve towards their best adaptation to our universe. The most powerful aspect of human evolution is the continual shift in our morality and code of conduct. As Herbert Spencer put it: "Evil perpetually tends to disappear." And why is that? Simply because, as common sense dictates and as Spencer rightly observed, "all evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions."

God is a Selfish Sado-Masochist?!

Let's talk about God! Most people I know to seem to think he (she/it?) is a being who has designed a world with a lot of rules, put us there, and now wills us to live there. Catholics, who I personally have most experience with, also assert that we need to serve him and obey all his rules and regulations as stipulated by a guy in Rome who wears a funny hat. Now I do not want to disrespect the Pope or this great religion (which is largely responsible for the existence of our entire civilization and capitalist market system), but I do have to say some of its commandments are a bit ridiculous. So let's discuss this special person - God.
God created everything for himself, did he not? And he told everything to follow his rules, did he not? And he punishes those who do not follow his rules, does he not? Are you getting the pattern here yet? It seems to me God is a mighty selfish individual! I could, of course, say that all of the universe belongs to him and thus he has the right to rule it with an iron fist. After all I accept Lockean homesteading and as it is with man, it must be with God: "the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his". But that would also mean something crazy - namely that children are the property of their parents. After all, they did create the children out of themselves much as God created humankind. As Max Stirner put it:

"He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must "serve a higher cause." – Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him."

But furthermore what is the character of this creature, God? Well, he is said to be omnipotent (he created everything out of nothing!). And yet he created an imperfect world. It is a world in which his laws are continually broken. He has to keep punishing or blessing people for their actions. If he is omnipotent he could just repair it all in the blink of an eye! But he continues to trudge on and make series after series of mistakes. Either his omniscience is indeed nonexistent, or he must have some frightening character flaw. I would posit that he is (assuming he is an omniscient and omnipotent being) a sado-masochist. He enjoys people breaking his rules (masochism!) and he enjoys punishing them for it (sadism!). After all if both were not the case, why would he continue on with this arrangement? Since I also assume he is ultimately good, why would he not just fix things? Why would he not make us perfect communistic people?

This whole discussion, of course, was strictly ironic and polemic. It was meant to illustrate the absurdity of God as some people imagine him - that old man (our Father) in the sky who watches over us and helps or punishes those on Earth. I think the Law of God is pure and simple, though we break it all the time without knowing. This Law was defined by Herbert Spencer as the Divine Plan. As the great Spencer writes, "evil perpetually tends to disappear". Why? Because, again to quote the man, "all evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions". And we violate this Law daily by seeking to save the unfit and punish the strong and successful. This is the greatest evil of collectivism, and the greatest evil of the state.

Government In Your Bedroom

Recently I read an absolutely shocking story coming out of the UK. I have known for years that Her Majesty's Homeland is the world's leader in socialism and social engineering. I did not, however, think that we have moved into the sphere of complete tyranny in personal life. The UK's social-democratic and socialist movements have always been very accepting of all sorts of strange practices especially when they involved a person's sexuality. Homophobia was unheard of among the elites - something I've always admired about the British. In this case though, I don't know whether to laugh (at its absurdity) or cry (because of the awful human rights violation).
As I said multiple times on this blog, the only decent newspaper worth reading in the UK is the Daily Telegraph. You would not believe my shock when I went on the Telegraph website a few days back and found this. The title of said article really says it all: "Court bans man with low IQ from having sex". This adult human being has been restricted - the government's goons will now monitor the inside of his house 24/7 to see that he follows the court ruling. This poor guy was in a homosexual relationship at the time and is quoted as saying that the relationship makes him feel happy. Apparently one of his problems is that he has a vigorous sex drive and doesn't know the dangers sex poses (i.e. pregnancy). So what can we learn from this precedent?
Well, I think we should put a camera in the bedroom of every 14 year old! In England teenage pregnancy figures happen to be the extremely high - maybe all those children don't know the consequences of their actions? And believe me, low IQ has nothing to do with having a vigorous sex drive, little teenagers suffer from that more than anyone. I therefore posit that such a law is passed immediately! We also need to conduct mandatory IQ tests for every person in the country and if they fall below a certain line - let's say 60 - we ban them from having sex forever!
I think I don't have to mention this ruling not only legitimizes the existence of a Police State, but also legitimizes eugenics. The said Telegraph article also mentions on what basis this man is being abused: "Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, its judges have the power to make life or death decisions for people deemed to lack the intelligence to make them for themselves – such as ordering that they undergo surgery, have forced abortions, have life-support switched off or be forced to use contraception." Obviously eugenics has been brought in through the back door. We can now perform abortions and euthanize people who we deem "mentally unstable" or whatever. Life and death decisions at the whim of bureaucrats. This is disgusting beyond belief.

It is clear to me that in this modern "civilized" world we have replaced natural selection with eugenics. It is eugenics to prevent this man from enjoying his freedom just in case he might get someone pregnant (which seems silly considering he is a homosexual...). But it was also eugenics-policy to keep this man alive in government-provided housing and force general taxpayers to pay for his survival. I have been a long-time follower of the doctrines of Darwin and Spencer, and their position is best summed up in the following quote from Sir Francis Galton: "One of the effects of civilisation is to diminish the rigour of the application of the law of natural selection. It preserves weakly lives that would have perished in barbarous lands."

Can Man Ultimately Evolve Into "The Good"?

The key to understanding Social Darwinism has always been grasping the concept of the interrelation between social and biological evolution. I base my understanding of such matters on Herbert Spencer's vision (although such a vision would more properly be called Social Lamarckism). Social Darwinism is not a moral system per se; it cannot tell us what exactly to do under certain circumstances and how we should act. Rather, it i a concept which describes a process inherent in all living things. Namely: That which is in use (being necessary) will grow and enlarge while that which is not in use (being unnecessary) will decline and disappear. Thus, for instance, in a biological sense, humans do not have gills. When our ancestors left their aquatic environment they used these organs less and less until they vanished completely. The same process takes place with regard to societal functions of man. Aggression is a necessary impulse in primitive human societies because it was required for survival in a primal sense. Aggressive individuals were more likely to be able to take what they need and eliminate opponents. They were the ones that produced the most offspring. The 'might makes right' standard of the primitive state of nature required humans to live this way. However, according to Spencer, society and cooperation are based on the lack of aggression. Therefore to be well suited for society humans must curb their aggressive impulses. Overly-aggressive individuals will not be welcome and will die childless - excluded from society. Non-aggression will therefore be favored in a moral sense as well as in a biological sense (the non-aggressive people will now have the upper hand and be able to pass on their superior genetic material). The final product of this process will be the "perfect man".
Now here is where I differ from the great Mr.Spencer:
Firstly - I do not believe we can ever determine what the perfect man will be like. Will he be a non-aggressive altruist for whom causing pain brings pain and doing good bring pleasure as Spencer claims? I am afraid that sounds overly Utopian and, may I say, Marxist!
Secondly, Mr.Spencer bases his claims on that sad and evil beast UTILITARIANISM. This strange and terrible concept has devoured many great minds and twisted them into thinking that which is right is that which 'brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number'. I can never subscribe to such views.
On the whole, however, Spencer is right! Social Evolution is a process whether we like it or not! I do not disagree with Spencer about his conclusions either (I am simply not sure it is possible to prove the 'perfect man' claim). Every Christian bone in my body believes his conclusions are right. But this is, again, just a belief - not rooted in fact or empirically provable. Logic (of which Spencer is a great champion) may, however, point us in the right direction. Maybe man can become good, maybe man can end up existing "in God's image"? We'll never know...

And regarding my last post - the Clintons seem to have a very peculiarly tight relationship with Kosovo. Why else would the citizens of that 'state' erect a statue of the most pathetic US President of the 20th Century?

Social Darwinism is NOT Evil

For some reason many people I speak to equate Social Darwinism with real active Eugenics - Hitler style. They could not be more wrong. "Social Darwinism" is a moral, but mainly scientific, way to view evolution among people, within society. Most of my Darwinist ideas come from the writings of Herbert Spencer, arguably the greatest man of the 19th Century. He is also, sadly, the most misunderstood man of his time. Whenever I mention Spencer in "intellectual" circles (i.e. to some people who have somewhere heard or read something about Spencer) I am told he is as bad as Hitler! According to many scholars Spencer advocated the "might-makes-right" approach to morality, a world where the weak should perish and the powerful should let them die - for the good of humanity. This is blatantly false. Spencer did argue that people who are stupid and a drain on society through their own criminal ways should be eliminated. But we don't need to eliminate them actively, through evolution, they eliminate themselves! This is present where, for example, a gangster shoots another gangster or, in a legal scenario, a man kills another in a duel to which they both agreed. Nowhere does Spencer say we should harm, hurt, or kill anyone on purpose. In fact, the very act of harming others would put us into the category of people who should be eliminated. Eliminated by nature itself because "The whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, and to make room for better. (Social Statics, 1851). As for saving people who were unfortunate and their low status or health problems were not of their making, Herbert Spencer said charity is indispensible as a way to save these valuable individuals for the later good of all.
People often read Spencer's comments out of context. They read 1 or 2 chapters of his massive works and don't understand the overall picture. This is where I think this demonization of Spencer comes from.