We humans, with our science, are hacking God’s source code. I give the name, God, to all the mystery and all the explanation that a human ever had faith in before science came and began gnawing away at wonder. And, yes, it is truth, I think, that science reveals greater beauty than we ever knew existed… but just as often it seems to let Amazon.com figure out which subtly manipulative nudge to give me toward buying that waffle iron they know I need before I do. I don’t like the feeling of being the subtly domesticated – no matter how pleasant the reinforcement… But I keep coming back for more don’t I? So I must like it some.

Science is our mistress, and she feeds us all, whether we fawn over her or not. She seems to me a mistress without purpose, but then I must look the same to the animals I raise – for slaughter and as pets. Orwell looks more and more the prophet. Wall-Mart reaps more and more profit… But I haven’t had many hungry days in my life, and my father has… but not in a long while… Being domesticated has its upsides. Science is the path to our prosperity and our relinquishment of mystery. Freedom is mystery’s illusion, and I miss believing I have choice, even as I still feel I have choice. I enjoy my belly filled up with the food made possible because of scientific innovation… and, in part, chosen because of increasingly scientific manipulation.

I consider all these things, but choice was only ever an illusion. I breath, and think, and live, as surely and predictably as dominoes falling. Everyone always has and always will. I find it disconcerting to be vaguely aware and apparently powerless.

Peace and prosperity have been fragile things. They are so hard to maintain without hypocrisy. Since the first field of grain was planted, peace and prosperity have nearly always been bordered by grimacing strong arms and violent encounters.

I imagine a world where equity renders borders meaningless, but I wonder do we humans, so petty up to now, possess the goodwill, good faith, and willingness to sacrifice a bit of ourselves for others, to move us to that ideal.

I can imagine a good and humane world, but only if enough of us collectively choose to trust and share with others. I wonder if we have the desire or motivation to resist our baser tribal predilections. I wonder if we can reign in the hypocrisies we will apply to bring equity to the world. I wonder can a kinder fairer world be built on hypocrisy. I wonder can a kinder fairer world be built without hypocrisy.

We shall see.

The more complex the system, the more perfectly the components must function. The more complex the system, the more imperfectly human components function.

I think time is not a brittle line.

I think we perceive a static past and uncertain future, but , to me, time seems more likely to be dynamic. Past, present and future forever in flux. Perhaps, like water, time pools or flows, but I doubt it exists indelibly before a certain point and fluidly after that point, the way I experience it.

I suspect that my momentary perception of past and future shifts with the tides of past and future. I can barely imagine a fluid past, but I cannot reason why it should be otherwise. It frightens me.

Science fiction is often written with the perspective that altering an existing timeline would be catastrophic. I have never before asked why this should be catastrophic, but now I do. I think the idea of altering my past is frightening because it would render memories mute. I am largely (if not wholly) defined by my memories. Altering them feels a terrifying loss of self. Just because I am afraid of a thing does not make the thing untrue.

I wonder how long the time that supports my consciousness will remain stable. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe this is all just a flash. At any rate, my attachment to myself is a clear bias, and I see that bias in much human thought, philosophy, and religion.

When one doesn’t trust their senses it’s hard to move beyond, “I think, therefore I am.” What am I?

Death is just the end of me

That enigmatic “I” set free

Joining existence
….of free will
…. or in resistance
Never the less “me” will cease to be
…. eventually

Ah well, it was only ever an illusion anyway
I’ve only ever been a self important variable
… in an infinite algorithm
…. Set in motion
….at the beginning of time

What arrogance that I value myself
… Or you
… Or anything

But I do

So I dread the end of me.

Human rules are never rules. Human’s only ever create guidelines interpreted, administered, and limited by the empowered.

“Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast”, are the words of soldiers past.

They knew well, what we ignore.

Taking time, we do far more.

When I was little, I grew very fast.

I am full sized now, and my growth is now limited to emotional and behavioral not physical. I can hone or neglect my adult body, but I can not grow taller.

Growing a full size economy with stimulus is like growing a full sized person with food. the subject may get bigger, but probably not in a desirable way.

An economy need not be growing in size in order to be healthy. This is an economic perspective based on the childish belief that unlimited growth in a closed system is possible. An economy only needs to be dynamic to be healthy. Growth is a benchmark for healthy children. Dynamism and healthful behavior are much better indicators of adult health.

I write to America and Europe, in 2018. We may grow more, but I doubt it will be a healthful growth. It will be growth based on economic sugar and fat – a moment on the lips an eternity on the hips. We are full grown now. As an adult economy, we can only hope to remain healthy and vigorous for as long as possible.

An economy like an ecosystem is a dynamic environment. Like an ecosystem, an economy can exist anywhere on a spectrum between Highly managed or not managed at all. Both work in the sense that activity of some sort will occur. An economy that exists without intervention will be vibrant and self driving. It will be vital and aggressive. It will also be brutal and harsh – prone to booms busts and collapses until it finally settles into a surprising status quo. A managed economy is like a garden. It may be shaped and cultivated in any number of ways. However, the inputs required to maintain an artificial system are significant. In a manner, they require the addition of far more fertilizer or artificial light. They require specific nutrients be added at the proper times. And yet, they hold the potential to bloom in ways that nature does not. The creatures that inhabit them are gentler and often more fragile. Their softness makes them they are attractive to nature, which in its hardness sees opportunity. If untended, they always revert to a brutal state. In a garden, the gardener watches closely. The members are flora and fauna carefully monitored, pruned, and culled accordingly. Gardens are the result of a central power or powers exerting their desires on nature. This process can be harmonious or acrimonious, but it’s particular nature is driven by the preferences and diligence of it’s gardeners. In the absence of a gardener, nature will begin to encroach, and only the strongest cultivars will be able to remain, often with dramatic changes in their own internal natures. Extractive over cultivation may lay land barren for a time and may kill off micro organisms that the whole system relies on. At the same time, in a harsh environment, middle of the road plants and animals are at the mercy of both micro-organisms and larger predators.

The question of which type of economy will foster the greatest prosperity is a red herring. Both systems will support life. Life is the counterpoint to death. Both spring eternal. The question is ultimately one of individual and social values. Both will foster commerce. and some creatures will be better suited one or the other. Both feral economies and cultivated economies will continue according to the interactions of their inhabitants. Ultimately, in a stable environment, every inhabitant lives and dies to be consumed by its offspring, neighbors, or both.

If you are one of those who possess sufficient agency, ability, and motivation to consciously choose the manner in which you live and way in which you exert what impact you may on your environment, then you have choices to make based on your values:

For those who favor some management the questions I believe are worth asking are: What do we value?; Are we fully aware of all of our values and where they come into competition?; what sort of environment do we wish to inhabit?; And are we willing to share our garden or even tolerate the the agricultural practices of those farms, gardens, and ranches near us?
For those who favor a totally natural environment, the only question is, how do I survive and procreate.
For those who believe in managed compromises, or enforced standoffs. the question is how do I navigate to the environment for which I am best suited and do I have the will and ability to survive in that environment through compliance or my own natural abilities? Is my preferred role that of gardener, prey, predator, flora, fauna, micro, macro? We should remember that members of both systems may exist in either and that, in both systems, members act with varying levels of empowerment and agency at different times. Both systems run on tension between individuals and organizations scaled up and down from the base components of a bacteria to the complexities of organisms and organizations.

Ultimately, there will always be some flux between natural and managed. But all systems reach a point of general homeostasis or they collapse in on themselves with new activity springing from the leavings of the old system.