Skip to main content

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a girl of style and grace...

Not really, but it's been my opening line for years.

Hello Daily Kos readers. My name is Valkyrie Ice. While that is not yet my legal name, it is the name I have been known by for over 30 years online, and as such is a unique identifier, not an "alias" or attempt to "hide my identity". A simple google search of my name will lead you to my facebook, my email (lsmcgill at both hot and g mail) and my many articles for H+magazine, Acceler8or.com, Transhumanity.net, and IEET, as well as a complete bio at: http://lifeboat.com/...

So, don't bother trying to accuse me of hiding behind a fake name. I don't use the "legal appellation" Lance for a simple reason, I am transgender, and I despise it.

That said, lets get down to brass tacks shall we?

I am a transhumanist. For those of you who do not know what that means, I see humanity as an evolving species. We are a tool making animal, and we have over the centuries refined those tools to the betterment of mankind. It also means I see those tools as a continuing means improve the human condition. I neither view humanity as inherently "flawed" nor "perfectable", I just think we have the potential to improve.

I am also a "humanitarian", in the sense that I see value in the existence of all human life. I see things in the long term, acknowledging that the exact value of any given human to my own personal goals and desires is an unknown, but that investments in others have the potential to have a return many times greater than my outlay. I see societies as a system intended to benefit all members, and understand that most of the systemic problems we currently have are not due to failures of the systems, but due to the hijacking of those systems by parasitical entities diverting benefits into individual "status hordes" to the detriment of the commons.

As such, I have no political leanings, no ideological ideals, and claim no labels. I merely observe, analyse, and report what I see as the logical outcomes.

And, if I have already convinced you that I am "a crackpot" or any of the other numerous pejoratives I have been called in the past, so be it. It has no bearing on the underlying reality I observe, nor on the trends I report on, and even less on their logical progressions.

However, if you are still interested in my observations, read on.

Welcome to those of you who chose to continue. Let's see how quickly I can convince you I am stark raving insane, shall we?

If you read any of the articles I have published previously, you will note I consistently refer to myself as a "Succubus to be". This is my online persona, one that is far more "really me" than the fiction I project "IRL" For now, just go with it. My reasons for presenting myself in this way are rather unimportant at the moment, because to understand them, there is a lot more information you need to know first.

So, where to begin?

First off, regardless of what many people have accused me of, I am not an optimist. I hold no great opinion of "human  nobility", nor do I think that "justice" "equality" "good" or "evil" hold any intrinsic meaning. "Left" and "Right", "Conservative and "progressive", "Liberal" or "Libertarian", are all meaningless labels intended to provide a "narrative" in which their followers are "hero's fighting against the tyranny of (insert given opponent here)".

To be blunt, the overwhelming majority of humanity does little more than serve as infectious vectors for one parasitic ideological meme complex or another. Very few of them actually serve their own self interests, instead serving only as disposable agents of their ideology, ants marching to the orders of a non-existent queen, seeking only to spread their ideology, and further it's goals, oftentimes at the expense of their own well-being, and even their own lives. Very few people make even a token effort to examine their "beliefs" in an objective manner, and reject those elements which are detrimental to their continued well-being, which are illogical, or which encourage harm to others. Instead, they accept the "received wisdom" of their ideological "faith" and then precede to attempt to "convert to the faith" as many others as they can.

And this applies not merely to religion, but to any ideology.

Because of this, most people exist in an "echo chamber", a "worldview" in which fact means less than faith. While the "Republican/Conservative/Rightwing" faction is one of the more egregious examples of this "cocooning", it is nonetheless an almost universally shared trait of humanity. ( I don't even excuse myself from this fact. As hard as I try to examine things solely from a logical and evidence based perspective, I have no doubt I have many as yet unnoticed biases I still need to weed out. We humans excel at rationalization of our illogical biases after all.)

Now, if I have not yet outraged and offended the majority of you, let me add that this also applies to non-political and non-religious fields of human endeavor as well, such as science, in which any evidence that contradicts "consensus" is "heresy".

However, as I have pointed out previously, ( http://www.acceler8or.com/...) "Consensus" is a political term, an "Argumentum ad Populum" fallacy intended to prevent dissent and quell questioning of the "status quo." It has no value in science, and it's use serves only as a means to enforce "ideological purity" among "the faithful".

In other words, do not expect me to accept "consensus" as a "valid argument" for any reason, on any subject, at any time. Objective reality is a matter of evidence, and not a popularity contest. As the saying goes, "it only takes one white crow to disprove the theory that all crows are black."

So, to any of you still reading, you are probably curious as to what I "see" as "objective reality". Let me start by giving the basic way I see "humanity" and "Society".

I discuss this far more fully in my blog: (http://valkyrieice.blogspot.com/...) but to simplify, humans are driven by two basic instinctual drives. the first is survival, the second is reproduction. These two drives lie at the center of everything we do on a day to day basis, but we have complicated and rationalized and compounded so many "excuses" for our actions, we have deluded ourselves into thinking that we have no instincts, and by doing so, have given them complete freedom to run amuck, regardless of the harm they inflict to ourselves, our societies, and each other.

We are "pack/herd" animals. Our genetically inherited "survival strategy" is to band together into groups. We instinctively know that there is a greater chance of our survival as individuals if we act in concert, and that by co-operation, we each receive benefits that exceed the benefits achievable alone. As a side effect of our gathering into "societies" we instinctively create hierarchical structures, or "governments". This is a means to allow the "collective" to efficiently enable the equitable sharing of "combined resources" for the good of all members of the collective.

Note, this is the "ideal", and requires voluntary participation of the individual, call it "socialism" if you wish, it matters little. The point is that in an "ideal" system, the role of "government" is to provide benefits to all members of a society through management of voluntarily shared resources, enabling the creation of "benefits" impossible to provide for oneself. It does so through "allocation of resources" created by "division of labor", in which each individual offers their "product" to the community in exchange for the "products" of other individuals in the community. Under ideal conditions, this enables a "community" to create "surplus" over and above the "basic needs", and thus creates "affluence" and the ability to "grow" (support a larger community without stressing existing resources)

Were this the only instinct we have, obviously "poverty" would not exist. But it also would likely mean we would still be a hunter/gatherer society.

Which brings us to the second instinct we have, reproduction. Where survival encourages us to co-operate, reproduction is all about competition. Our genes want to reproduce, and they want to reproduce with the "best available" genestock they can. This leads to us "competing" with each other in an effort to "prove our worthiness".

Now, competition is not a bad thing, it encourages improvements, and combined with the "benefit systems" of a community, it enables a continuous "Spiral of progress", in which each successive "improvement" enables greater benefits, more resources, and greater ability to grow to the society at large.

So, why then do we have "poverty, human suffering, etc?"

The reason is that as we have grown beyond the "tribal" system of society, universal accountability has been lost. The ability of the community to govern individual behaviors to ensure that they did not jeopardize the entire societies well-being faded as we grew into societies in which individuals could become "anonymous" and could hide actions that caused society harm behind a veil of secrecy. This has enabled individuals to in effect become parasites on the system, diverting shared community generated resources into their personal "Status Hordes" and using those communally generated resources to benefit only themselves as individuals.

(And to clarify, no, I am not talking about the poor, those requiring aid, or any individuals who makes any sort of income below, say arbitrarily, a couple of million a year, and only selectively of those who make more. To claim that such minor parasites are dangerous to the larger society as a whole is to basically ignore the facehugger sticking an alien in your chest while you are bitching about a fleabite. Not every individual in a specific societal tier acts parasitically, nor does parasitic behavior exist exclusively within specific tiers. Minor parasites are simply a fact of life, I am speaking primarily of those who's parasitic behavior threatens the life of the entire community.)

Again, for a much fuller explanation of my views, I recommend the link provided above "On Government".

However, what we have ended up with due to these factors is a society in which every single member of the human race is involved in a "Status Game." Almost every action we perform, every belief we hold, every ideology we espouse, we do so in order to "improve" one or more status markers, either to earn "social accolades", "financial awards" or any of a large variety of "status markers" which we consciously or unconsciously acquire in order to "make us more appealing" to whichever potential mates our genetics considers desirable.

We, of course, invent endless justifications to avoid acknowledging this. We don't like to think of ourselves as such animalistic beings, and in truth, we are not entirely this simplistic, but at the most basic level of subconscious motivation, it starts here. It's the basic substrate on which all else is built.

And it is this reality that underlies the majority of problems we have with accepting facts that conflict with our "ideological worldviews". The investments we have made in these worldviews, the "status" we believe that such a worldview gives us, and the "loss" of that status that we perceive will occur by admitting "we were wrong" provides little incentive to accept fact over faith. And since "increasing the flock" in essence "increases" status within the "group" of others who share that worldview, we are "rewarded" by spreading the "ideological virus" of these various memes, and "threatened" by those who hold contradicting memes.

And it is this view of humanity that underlies all of the analysis of society, our technological development, and how we will develop over the next few decades that I do.

Now, with this understanding it should be quite obvious that I view the various political divisions as neither "good" nor "evil" but see that there are various aspects of all sides which are beneficial for the good of the community, and thus all individuals within that community, and aspects which are detrimental to the well-being of the community, and by extension, to the individuals which contribute to that community, and depend on it for survival.

And yes, this does presently mean I see the "right/conservative/republican/teaparty" as containing memes which are far more threatening to the overall well-being of the human community, but it does not mean that there are NO beneficial memes mixed in to the morass. But neither does this mean that the "left/Progressive/Democrat/Liberal" ideologies are free from harmful and counterproductive memes either. It just means there are fewer harmful memes on the "left" relative to the "right".

Regardless, while these ideological differences are not "meaningless" and do play a large part in how much human suffering we will face in the transitional period we are undergoing, in a larger sense, they are also superfluous, in that their ability to deflect the technological evolution underway is minimal. The technological changes I see do not depend on any given political or ideological worldview, they are straightforward logical progressions of current research, engineering, and development. At best, political and ideological efforts can speed up or delay these development by a few years, but they cannot prevent them. All they can really accomplish is to make the transition smoother and less harmful, or make it harder and far more costly in terms of human lives.

I will allow that to be digested, and see whether there is any further interest by anyone before continuing. For those curious as to the origins of some of these observations, I recommend the book "God Wants You Dead" ( http://www.scribd.com/...) as well as some of my articles, available at the link found in the first section of this "diary"

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, (7+ / 0-)

    huh...

    I guess that all I can say is that midnight-ish on a Saturday is the perfect time to post a diary like this.  

    Me?  I expect nothing of you and am not that curious about your motivations and find myself un-outraged at your  - "stuff. "

    If you'd like to talk about Democrats, or the election thereof,  please wake me tomorrow.

    Can you call yourself a real liberal if you aren't reading driftglass?

    by CJB on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 11:14:32 PM PST

  •  And you posted this on a website dedicated to (3+ / 0-)

    "more and better Democrats" just why?

    Because you could?

    War beats down, and sows with salt, the hearts and minds of soldiers." Brecht

    by DaNang65 on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 11:37:51 PM PST

    •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto

      Because the "democrats" are the only option to make the transition to the future that is developing less painful for the masses. Because the "temporary measures" needed to prevent needless suffering, loss of life, and pointless misery will ONLY come from the "democrats."

      But they will not happen so long as the current situation remains unchanged. And "half-hearted" measures, which are all that is likely to emerge from the current crop of politicians, will not be sufficient to deal with far more immediate problems than climate change, or many other "darling issues" of the left. Those issues can be corrected, the technological means to do so already exists for the overwhelming majority of them, but they will not be implemented by the current status quo.

      I don't care about ideological messaging. My interest is in saving as many human lives as possible with as little suffering as possible, as we make a transition into a new economic model. Why? Because I have no desire to be one of those lives lost or one of those who suffer.

      Can that be done here? I don't know. Can having a discussion about it occur? Hopefully. Will it have any impact, make any difference? Who can say.

      But the odds it MIGHT are better here than, say, Redstate.

      And once these more immediate issues are resolved, if they ever are, the ability to implement the solutions for the other longer range and more involved problems, will be that much easier.

      After all, you can jump further if you run a few steps first.

      But I won't pretend to be a "democrat" in order to be heard. My views may be more inclined to be "liberal", "Democratic", "Progressive," etc, but I do not consider myself one. I simply see potential for mutually aligned goals.

  •  Or, to put a previous comment in a bit more (7+ / 0-)

    nuanced way, what was it particularly that drew you to Daily Kos? Should you take the time to become a community member, I'm certain that the background you've given will lead to many interesting and varied discussions on any number of topics, but none of it speaks to the reasons why you would join a site which is primarily composed of partisan Democrats.

    Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on that question.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 11:50:34 PM PST

      •  Works for me, though you might want to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes, marykk

        moderate your language just slightly until you've established a presence here. Calling climate change a "darling issue" is not particularly likely to win friends and influence people as a beginning.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 12:44:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is a problem with a solution (0+ / 0-)

          Several in fact, all technological, not political. We have the means to remove the excess carbon, all of it, within a ten year span. We have had for more than a decade. Had the technology been put to use, which would have cost less than what has been spent on climate change politics, it could have been solved already.

          Yes, it is expensive. Yes, it will NOT make a profit. It CAN be done, could have been done, and should have already been done. And it could be built large enough even to cope with carbon released by china, as well as the third world nations. It would not prevent localized issues in high pollution zones, but would remove sufficient build up that it would eliminate any effects caused by carbon buildup over the entire industrial revolution. And it would create thousands of jobs to build and maintain the system, which would also double as either a series of solar or wind power plants.

          As such, as a problem with a solution, why has it not been solved? Because keeping it a political issue is far more profitable for both sides. It pushes the right buttons, it gets campaign funds, it whips up voters into frenzies on both sides of the political divide.

          So how to make it a no longer a political issue so that it can finally be addressed and resolved?

          Re-orient government to what it is intended to be, a tool of the people used to accomplish projects too big for any individual to address, and which has has it's sole motive providing for the common welfare of all it's citizens. It will require repairing the current broken political system, and, at present, only the democratic side shows any possible hope of being able to do so. Provided, of course, that the "democratic" representatives in congress can be forced to listen to their constituents instead of the lobbyists lining their pockets.

          The same goes for many other "problems" that we face. Solutions exist to resolve many of the "disasters" or "shortages" which are constantly used to promote fear responses for political capital. But until the "system" is repaired, these issues will remain unfixed.

          As such, the fastest way to a solution for a large number of problems is to focus on the immediate goal of restoring a functional government which operates in the best interests of society as a whole, and not merely in the interests of those with the most money.

    •  Free advertising? Seeking rays of attention? (4+ / 0-)

      Smacks of it.

      la huerta del rey / pelado es, pero él / quiere fruta

      by yojimbo on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 02:27:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know. On this one, I think it might be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yojimbo

        worth it to wait and see. Otoh, if "all" that needs to be done to implement the technological solutions is to create a true representative democracy first - well, I don't do miracles very well.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 02:47:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Otoh / off-topic (4+ / 0-)

          maybe there should be a ded ("dead-"?) icated DK group called something like, "Weekend Anarchists" or "Attention-Seeking Millenialist Prophets" or "I Told You So-&-Sos" or even "I Hate Your Site, But I'll Use It Because It Gives Me A Free Entourage."
          Might even approach the popularity of pootie groups or the Saturday morning gardening/home improvement blogs - which are useful and interesting, might I opine.

          la huerta del rey / pelado es, pero él / quiere fruta

          by yojimbo on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 03:01:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, not quite. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

          You see, the technological solutions are being delayed, but they will eventually be implemented.

          And creating a "true representative democracy" is also something that will eventually no longer be avoidable.

          Neither occurrence is dependent on any action undertaken in the present. They are the logical outcomes of numerous trends occurring in science, technological development, and society. It is not a single path that leads to this eventuality, but hundreds of them, all converging on a future in which nearly every single "problem and concern" we currently believe "unsolvable" will cease to exist as the underlying causes of them are addressed.

          As such, there is no need for miracles. Nothing I do will alter this trajectory.

          So my intent is to attempt to focus on short term, temporary measures designed to minimize human suffering, loss of life and hopefully, cushion the shock that will occur over the next decade or so as we face a radical restructuring of our economic systems, and indeed, our very concepts of "reality". The world we currently take for granted is about to be upended.

          The last time we faced such a change, from an agrarian economic model to an industrial economic model, we had a nasty little side effect known as the American Civil War. It would nice, I feel, if we could manage to avoid such a wasteful and unnecessarily extravagant waste of human life this time, no?

          As I pointed out in the main article, long term, as in over the next 15 to 25 years, these problems will cease to exist, as technological solutions to them become impossible to delay any further. Our current economic model is collapsing. A different economic model is rising. Between them is a valley.  We cannot stop the collapse. It is a natural result of evolutionary progress. The system is failing under the weight of it's success. We also cannot stop the rise of the new system that will replace the current economic model.

          What we can do, hopefully, is build a bridge to cross the valley between the two and avoid the need to plunge into the depths before crawling up the other side.

          Sadly, in order to do so, we must first stop those who have strapped a JATO rocket to their asses and are trying to leap over the edge yelling "Geronimo!" in their eagerness to get to the bottom.

          It won't alter the outcome, we will still emerge on the other side. We will just be a whole lot worse for wear getting there.

          •  Maybe. And that's the first time I think I've (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hey338Too

            demurred on this side of the question since I've been here. I tend to err on the side of people being smart enough to find the solutions they need.

            I think the world we took for granted has already been upended - but that very few people either realize it or are comfortable with acknowledging it. One symptom of that upending that I note is that there is a great deal of talk about bringing up mechanisms for social change which were more or less viable a century ago.

            We're in the middle of future shock, and even futurists such as I think I am are having trouble accepting the full panorama of change, much less that we ain't seen the half of it yet. I think we may need to experience at least a part of that abyss before we are jolted into workable action.

            At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

            by serendipityisabitch on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 03:57:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Indeed. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

              We ARE in a state of future shock, and that is by far and away the greatest barrier to taking the steps needed to cushion the impact.

              The Republican party and the corporations who fund them are suffering this shock worst of all. The world they understood, the world that they were undisputed masters of, is slipping away, and they do not comprehend how to function in the emerging reality, so they fight against it, seeking to turn back time and return to a "golden age" that existed only in their dreams. They are desperate, riding a boat so overloaded with gold it is sinking, and they are turning on one another in an ever more vicious cycle, looking for anyone and anything (except the gold) they can toss off the boat in their efforts to stay afloat just one more day.

              And that lies behind their endless attempts to discredit the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, and their all consuming drive to resume power. They are terrified of a future in which they no longer matter. So they look to the past, and resort to the same old tactics that previous "powers that be" tried to use to prevent change, hoping that this time will be different, that this time, they will work.

              But... it's too late. The best that they can achieve with a victory is hastening the fall off the cliff. Even if they create a totalitarian regime, and America ends up a fascist state, it will not remain one for more than a few years. The very technologies they think will ensure their rule are the same ones that will render it impossible. The age of totalitarianism is also ending. They can inflict massive damage, kill millions, do humanity grievous harm, but they cannot save themselves from the axe that will follow. And the end result will still remain the same.

              But at the same time, the democratic side is also suffering from these same effects. The future is not the one they have been conditioned to expect. They see the cracks in the system, they see the foundations crumbling, and they are desperately trying to patch it back up, refusing to comprehend the reality that a new and quite different system is rising up and shoving aside the old. They are so terrified by the "problems" created by the old system, and so busy trying to apply band-aids, that they cannot see that these problems will go away with the old system, and be replaced with entirely new ones. Yet they are the only hope of mitigating the shock of transition.

              And yes, our culture, our media, our visionaries have done a poor job preparing us for the future we face. Read any sci-fi book you wish, watch any movie, and you will see no views of the near future that is not just now with more special effects. Even the "far future" we are familiar with, like Star Trek, has proven to be YEARS, not centuries away from reality.

              I don't fear the future. What I fear is being one of the unlucky ones who do not make it to that future because of someone else's fears.

              •  Our visionaries have done a fine job of (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hey338Too

                preparing us, as well as can be done, for an unknown future, thank you.

                Humans are not very good, at the best of times, at trying to outguess themselves. What they are very, very good at is reacting to actual change, once it's obvious enough, and putting solutions in place to cope with it.

                We've very seldom had old problems go away with change - usually the new ones just get added to the mix, and we solve for different situations.

                You just said more or less what I said, except with more words and more hyperbole. Hyping the problem to try to make it scarier so that people will want to focus on the unsolvable instead of workable partial solutions does a disservice to both of us - and everybody else.

                It's going to be an interesting time. We don't need to add extra fear to the mix in hopes of trying to avoid it. All that can do is make people more likely to try to stubborn it out, and potentially make the transition harder.

                At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                by serendipityisabitch on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 06:32:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My intent is not to create fear. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

                  In general, I find greater knowledge reduces fear. My writing to date is about sharing knowledge - creating understandable bridges between the present, and the predictable, logical developments that will follow as technology already in the lab and headed for the public arrives. I have spent many thousands of words doing all I can to reduce fear, and focus on the positives. Read a few of my articles, and the commentary.

                  But I will also stand by my words. You are correct that up to this point, old problems remained, and merely added to the new. But that will not be true of the future we are entering, because the root causes of many of those problems, the underlying "unchangeable" conditions which enabled those problems to exist in the first place, will change.  And that, more than anything else, is what we have not been prepared for. It is neither hyperbole, nor an attempt to elicit fear. It is merely a situation that will occur due to the wave of changes that is underway.

                  Almost everything that is likely to occur will be beneficial to humanity in the end, but it will not seem that way to many during the transition, because it will require changes to very basic "certainties" and "worldviews" which are "treasured". And that is true of both "Republicans" and "Democrats" alike.  Those will be the topics of my further posts, but they are all things I have already written about, all things which I have already discussed quite thoroughly with other people. If you are interested, they are all in my bibliography.

                  •  So, a last question: does your last paragraph (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hey338Too

                    mean that you do not expect to actually get new input with your postings? Sorry if I'm reading it incorrectly, but it does seem to support an interest primarily in teaching your viewpoint, rather than any interest in having it challenged.

                    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                    by serendipityisabitch on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 07:26:06 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Very nicely done. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serendipityisabitch

    I, too, am not from this planet.

    And, of course:

    I am a transhumanist. For those of you who do not know what that means, I see humanity as an evolving species.
    As are all the sentient species in the Universe. Sad so many of them are poisoned by their own waste -- but there's always a back-up waiting in the wings with the potential to get past that all too common pitfall.

    Welcome to local orbit.

  •  Nothing shocking in this, not even (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yojimbo, skohayes

    its insular solipsism.

    But "Re-orient government to what it is intended to be" is something even tea baggers can agree with. You should type it below a charming picture and sell it as a poster.

    If you spent less energy convincing yourself you're really really different from the common herd you might be able to see the ordinary commonality of your actual views, find what useful things others are doing, join them and get something accomplished.

    When it comes to learning, doing and talking, don't put talking first.

    Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

    by Bob Love on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 02:55:31 AM PST

    •  "really really different from the common herd?" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too

      I don't really see my self as anything special. I have poor organizational skills, don't lead very well, and my sole "talent" is some skill with words and many years of observation and massive amounts of reading. Nothing I say is original, it has all been said previously by people far more brilliant than I.

      Even the courses of action I believe will serve to mitigate the potential harm this transitional period could bring are those designed by others. Many of them are already goals held by the people on this site.

      I may hope that discussion of these topics might inspire someone who has a greater ability to effect change than I to lend their aid to a particular course of action, but that hope is small. Primarily, I expect this to be an exercise in data collection, a discussion which may lead to new insights - a few more puzzle pieces assembled both for myself and those who chose to talk to me.

      As for the "commonality of my views"? The above Diary is merely an introduction. I am a technology forecaster, and I discuss the social impacts and likely developments of technology, most of which the "majority" find disturbing in the extreme. At least such has been my experience to date.

      Maybe it will be different here? Only time will tell.

      •  Your defensiveness is unwelcoming, for starters. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IamGumby, CJB

        "So, don't bother trying to accuse me of hiding behind a fake name." No one cares what your user name is, for instance. Seriously.

        "if I have already convinced you that I am "a crackpot" or any of the other numerous pejoratives I have been called in the past ..."
        " Let's see how quickly I can convince you I am stark raving insane, shall we?"
        "regardless of what many people have accused me of ..."
        "if I have not yet outraged and offended the majority of you ..."

        You come across as someone who has developed an approach in isolation from others, and now want to start making connections with a wider world. Your tone, however, is high-handed as well as unnecessarily defensive. Starting off with a general lecture on your views is not nearly as welcoming as making direct contact with individuals by commenting on what they've been posting.

        We have some brilliant and deeply knowledgeable people here. They've read widely and deeply, and have engaged  others in and out of their fields for many decades. Find them and ask them questions until you understand how little you really know.

        Nothing you've said is particularly controversial, and I don't see anything that hasn't been said before countless times. I looked for any hint of an action plan but can't see one developing from any of your ex cathedra assertions. Jesus fucking Christ, drop the emotionalism and generalization and say something useful.

        I suggest you take the time to look through this site, engage others, and get some clue as to where you are before you start trying to convert us to the routine positions you think so "outrageous" and "offensive".  

        I know it's disappointing to burst open the doors, announce your advent with trumpets and confetti and be met with a yawn, but your really haven't offered us anything yet but lukewarm leftovers.

        Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

        by Bob Love on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 07:40:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My my (0+ / 0-)

          Trumpets? Confetti?

          Not at all. To be honest, I am surprised I received any notice at all.

          I grew out of a desire for "pats of the head" and "Kudo's" back in gradeschool.

          But you are right, nothing I have said yet is controversial. I am simply sticking my toe in the water to see what the Troll density is. The statements I started my Diary out with are nothing more than pointing out attacks I have answered so often from so many different sources that I've simply grown bored with repeating myself.

          I am quite amused at your apparent expectation that I was presumably supposed to write something earthshakingly profound in what is little more than me saying Hi, here's a little about myself.

          I've been on the web since before it was a web, Bob. This is hardly my first dance. I have spent several years occasionally perusing this board, and have used it frequently as a reference for popular liberal and democratic views on current events. Whether I become "well read" or not is meaningless. I am not seeking attention, but discussion, and possibly new insights, but I know from previous experience as a writer in a popular webzine, and from reading the various diary's here over the years, to expect a certain amount of childish antics, gratuitous insults, and general flaming.

          In that regard, let me thank you for the general politeness, despite the antagonistic tone. : )

  •  I feel your ambivilence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love

     I'm an Emersonian Transcedentalist myself.  I'm the only person to self identify as such that I know of.  At least, when I post my affiliation, no one chimes in and says "Me too!"  My daughter says that makes me a unitarian universalist, but I looked into it, and they are too organized for me.
      However, I come here to see what others are interested in, especially in terms of improving the human condition because...  Why not?  I feel best when I'm leaning in that direction.  I try to offer what I assume is my unique point of view, and offer encouragment those who are heading in that direction.
       I try not to give advice, and I'm not going to start now.  I would just say "Be yourself."  I'm sure everyone who reads your posts will take it from there.    

    "The light which puts out our sight is darkness to us." Thoreau

    by NancyWH on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 04:39:06 AM PST

    •  I am not sure ambivalence is the word I would use. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NancyWH, Free Jazz at High Noon

      Then again, I do not know what word I would use either. I tend to think of things in terms of balance. Light cannot exist without darkness, etc. I simply cannot see things in terms of black or white. It's all an infinite spectrum. It forces me to weigh every bit of evidence, rather than simply accept the "received wisdom" version.

      It's probably the Libra in me smile

  •  Crackpot? No. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Free Jazz at High Noon

    Granted it's a bit to digest at one sitting, but I rec'd this diary to share AND save for reading again later.
      Thank you for the new avenues of thought to pursue.

    "I sometimes lose my train of thought while engaging myself in meaningful conversation" - DN13

    by Devout Nonbeliever on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 10:04:57 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site