Fifty-Four Forty or Fight?

Why doesn't the USA own Canada? They dominate us militarily, economically, and (presumeably) culturally. We have all the natural resources they need (oil, lumber, water, an educated labour force, bad comedians etc.), so why not just take us over? Would Canadians even defend against an attack? Or is our collective asses de-facto owned? This is a puzzle to me.




Another puzzle is what it means when people refer to "find out who they are, where they come from." What does this actually mean? It's as if one if casting a net back into history to fish out a story to call one's own. Who are we but ourselves? That is, assuming we have some control over recognizing ourself as a thing unencumbered and free of association with the world of ideas, a thing that floats like wisps of powdery snow off tree tops and melts into the vapor that is air.

Mimetic Desire

What do we know about the human desire? (http://www.cottet.org/girard/desir1.en.htm)

Just a quick note to myself about rationality: Enlightenment 2.0?

There seems to be a lot more press and discussion about the irrationality of individuals in their decision-making. Behavioural studies show how when a person is given a set of choices, what they choose depends on how the choices have been presented and hence choices are inconsistent and therefore irrational.

Now as the academy and general discourse continues to discover, unravel, and document this seemingly fundamental mode of operation in human beings, will this lead to a more "rational" society? If we as a society come to document how irrational we are, will we become more driven towards rational outcomes? If computer technology helps us to acquire the information to perform calculations of our decision sets, will we use it? In other words, are we headed towards a kind of Enlightenment 2.0, without the trappings of attainable universal reason, but our decision-making becomes wholly consistent for each individual, even though what is rational is different for each person? Ah ha, the first step towards evolving into Vulcans!

an old joke

I do not think -- therefore I am not.

Here is the illustration of this principle:

One evening Rene Descartes went to relax at a local tavern. The tender approached and said, "Ah, good evening Monsieur Descartes! Shall I serve you the usual drink?".

Descartes replied, "I think not.", and promptly vanished.

The Allure of the Chinese Model

Calorie for Calorie, Eye for Eye

Here are a couple interesting links found:

A paper on the CO2 emissions from an animal-based diet, and another on the depletion of fish stocks

This information really shocks me, though I wonder if this is a phase or is the end really nigh? I've always been one "tuned" into trends and I've noticed with a sudden deluge of information suggesting the death of the planet. The links above are good starters. Or maybe my perception of the physical world around me has changed after watching An Inconvenient Truth. Or perhaps it is Nicholas Stern's recent scathing (though inaccurate) report on climate change? Or Greg Mankiw's discussion of Pigovian Taxes or even press coverage of Canada's steadfast refusal to implement the Kyoto Protocol. Even one of my favorite commentators, Thomas Homer-Dixon is talking about "tectonic stresses" that will destroy us all. Oh and don't forget nuclear annihilation. Yay!

Some more to digest (as I rework my reason for existing after drinking a slurpee):

Human Annihilation
End of Civilization
End of the World - Philosophical Views

Slowness

Today on my drive home, I heard David Suzuki interviewed on CBC Radio. He made an interesting point about technology and politics: in today's world it is very easy to get on the Internet and find a viewpoint to support whatever you believe in, whether it be intelligent design, anti-global warming, or that "aliens came down from space and raped women to start a species of super-humans". He lamented at how even a show like The Nature of Things has had to appeal with shock and awe in its programming, in order to get noticed in an ever-increasingly noisy "market" of information overload. We've lost our sense of slowness, to engage in long conversations and to contemplate. This is true. In an ever more complex world, how can we cope with the barrage of free market information overload? How can we collaborate in order to solve the impending disasters of our time. Thomas Homer-Dixon is right about the Ingenuity Gap. If we're spending all our energy on getting our voices heard, when do we have time to spend our energy on solving real problems?