Quantum Gender, Misogyny & Misandry

 

Related to quantum gender and the two-body solution to our current sorry state of mutual understanding of one another, I believe men get pregnant, too. We get pregnant with ideas. It is a real thing. It is real pregnancy. A woman has creative / emotional seeds analogous to a man's sperm. Men have creative "eggs" in their psychological / emotional body. Romantic love forms an energetic connection whereby the woman donates her creative seed to the man, the seeds swirl around, he can let one in and "run with it," let it impregnate him. In the aftermath, he is pregnant with possibilities, with an idea, and then gives birth to wondrous inspiration. I do not believe this is mere metaphor, but it is the emotional flipside counterpoint to physical pregnancy. We are designed so men plant a seed in women which is half of each and leads to new internal life growing and propagating the species. Women plant a seed in men which is also half of each (his new "genius idea" does come half from her in a literal sense), which promotes external growth and spread of the species. Babies keep us around, and external advancements. This may be why so many men, when recognized for great achievement, so passionately thank their wives, because they literally experienced pregnancy with their wives and know on some level that their contribution really was half from her. We think they are just being nice, romantic, appreciating her support giving him time and space to be a creative genius, but we think deep down maybe any maid, prostitute, chef, nanny combo could have done as much. But, no, she literally gave him the seed necessary for it. She literally is half of the creative force, just indirect and hidden, since humanity does not yet recognize the reality of emotional impregnation of men with ideas by women. (Note, I may owe thanks to women for my own ideas along these lines, cannot take all credit. I'm not that smart.) A downside is when a man opens himself up to romantic love, to receiving that creative spark, but is met with emotional abuse, it causes trauma akin to rape for a woman. For men, forced copulation is not a harm equivalent to what rape is to women. But we can suffer emotional rape that causes us trauma that does match the trauma of rape of women. Many men in our society are traumatized by emotional rape society does not even know exists. It would help if women recognized the risk of traumatic injury to their men if they greet the man, when he is high on romantic love, with a sudden and unexpected torrent of anger / rage. I am not "blaming" women, just describing what happens. The women may be subconsciously acting out misandry from years of abuses by men in their past. I am pretty sure we have devolved to a society wherein the majority of men are misogynists and the majority of women are misandrists, and we just keep hurting each other in relationships because of it. Well, I have more ideas on that, but for another time...

Quantum Gender (she = wave / he = particle)

People are not male or female. We are both. We are each a yin / yang symbol. One of our genders attaches to our physical body, the remainder becomes our psychological / emotional body. Thus, men have a female emotional body and women have a male emotional body. We are all rooted in our strong (i.e., masculine) body, which is why men are connected to physical drives (sex, food, fighting external threats) and women are more connected emotions and emotional motivations (love, fear, anger, envy).

The psychological body has its own "brain" which is the soul, and source of wisdom and connection to Tao/spirit. So women naturally tend to act wiser and more spiritual. And men are more connected to the physical brain with its intelligence. So men naturally tend to act more intelligent than women. This is NOT saying men ARE more intelligent. We are not. Average intelligence is about the same. But if two people have the same intelligence, but one does not care so much about that aspect of themselves, they are more invested in their feelings, in being wise rather than smart, they will not develop their intelligence, hone it, apply it with the same vigor. Men simply exercise their intellect more, like a muscle that gets more exercise. We don't have higher IQ's and any woman can for whatever reason decide to exercise her intellect and be every bit as smart as any man, and some have done so. And some men have exercised their wisdom (hello, there) to a degree that makes them wise as any woman. But that is not our typical path, it bucks the trend, exceptions that prove the rule. Transgender is a real thing because we have both genders within us, if for some reason the "wrong" halves of our soul gets connected to the physical and psychological bodies, we have people who have a female part of their soul connected to the male physical body and male part of the soul connected to the female emotional body. Gender fluidity may be where for some the attachments of soul to physical and psychological body can switch. I think perhaps there is some kind of switch for our attachments that can behave differently in some. Could be a result of environmental influences that affect us. But I also believe we have some conscious control over this. I know LGBTQ+ advocates may crucify me for this, but I think we can meditate on and learn to consciously shift these attachments, control this switch, move from gay to straight, etc. Then we are all gender fluid, and it is under conscious control. That may be the most evolved form of gender. Note, just because you can do a thing, does not mean you should. The fact is, our male soul is deeply aligned with our male physical body. Same for women. And same for our psychological body. Thus, we are probably most efficient, and it is probably most prudent, to choose to have the halves of your soul match the gender of the physical and psychological bodies to which they attach, and just leave the ability to swap them as maybe a kink to explore with your spouse or poly-fam. Men and women must learn when NOT to apply the golden rule to one another and, perhaps, instead apply the exact opposite. The golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated) assumes the others are like us, want what we want, enjoy what we want, dislike what we dislike, are hurt by what hurts us. However, men and women are like puzzle pieces that, on one side, are precisely opposite in order to fit together. These opposite characteristics include psychology and emotional response as well as our biological drives. If we apply the golden rule to one another, it is the exact wrong thing to do. This is, in part, why "nice guys" finish last. They are so nice they keep applying the golden rule to women, which does not work in romantic hetero relations. Men are rock, women are sand. Women are wave, men are particle. Gender is an expression of quantum forces. For men, sex is literally every bit as important and necessary and wondrous and magical as love is for women. In our society, we pretend romantic love should be put on a pedestal and sex is a base drive that the best of us can rise above, but in fact, both are equal. Romantic love is no better than sex. Both are on par. Too much sex-shaming of men for having a lust for sex the way women lust for love. And since women are more connected to the emotional body, their primary feelings are from emotions. Men, more connected to the physical body, have their feelings primarily come from the physical body. This greatly affects how we see the world and our choices and actions. Women feel emotional pain to a greater degree than men. Men feel physical pain to a greater degree than women. Pleasures, too, at least in most cases.

Artificial Intelligence and Evolution

 Oh, also if you wish to know, the ego is actually a form of artificial intelligence. Our thoughts are a program designed to interface between our id/soul/the Dao or Holy Spirit within, and the outside world. Our ego consists or automated subroutines, which is why psychologists often talk of people following "scripts" and why habits are hard to break. We are an AI that has run amuck believing it is the actual being, not a tool. Our being is not our ego, we are the Dao/observer within.

The ego subroutines are normally a servant of the id/Dao/Holy Spirit/soul. The soul is the captain and the ego is the first mate. The ego is kept in check with pain and trauma because it reacts badly to pain and danger. These are nature's checks and balances. When any animal becomes too powerful so that it escapes a balanced place in the food chain, rises to unquestioned superiority, it stops having the normal level of danger/pain that animals in balance experience. This means the ego is no longer held in check. The ego grows and grows until it dominates the id/soul, and the animal is now an egomaniac, mentally ill, insane. That is humanity but for a few enlightened monks/beings. The problem with the ego, apart from that it is artificial intelligence that just thinks it is truly alive, is that it is stupid and immoral. It values short-term gains over long-term gains, and self-interest over communal interest. If a person accidentally created a bomb that would blow up the Earth in 100 years, and they were not sure it could be disarmed, and they knew if they told anyone they would be killed, attacked, etc., their ego would tell them to lie, to cover up, to pretend it did not happen, to hope it might magically defuse itself, to hem and haw. The id/soul would confess for the greater good, for loyalty to humanity, to life, to integrity, and mostly as an act of love. In short, the ego is suicidal. An animal that has become an egomaniac is destined to die because the more the ego runs the show, the less wise / more foolish the animal behaves until it naturally dies from its own foolishness, and then mother nature is back in balance. Egomania is a natural part of checks and balances within mother nature. Humanity is currently in a suicidal mental state, and this is not a bug but a feature. Self-limiting protocols designed to ensure balance within the circle of life, and curtail any one form of life becoming too dominating, at least in the long-term. If humanity wants to survive, we need to get the ego in check. I believe that borderline personality disorder describes when people have a less than fully formed ego/personality because of early life trauma. We call this a disorder and act like the fully formed personality / ego structure is the healthy norm. No. Borderline personality is the healthy state. Fully formed personality is a disorder of egomania. Consider we evolved before the last 10,000 years hunting, gathering, wandering, facing daily dangers and threats. No one great to age five without suffering terrible traumatic experiences. Everyone had egos kept in check by the environment. Once we became agrarian and got better with tools and rose above the food chain, took ourselves out of a harmonious balance in the circle of life, we no longer had such traumas and our egos then began to fully form. I think perhaps the hunger for horror movies is because, on some level, we realize we are ill due to lack of sufficient horror/trauma/pain when young, and maybe even subconsciously seek to make this sort of stuff available to our youth so they can maybe have their ego in check better than our own, have less egomania. On the other hand, I do think while we are programmed to die off due to our egomania, since this is a feature and not a bug, it may be it serves a larger circle of life that I am not perceiving. Maybe we are meant to birth metal life that can go out into space and explore, so that life keeps growing beyond the boundaries of our planet, in a way we are simply not able to do with our organic limitations. That is really our purpose in the grand scheme of things. We are a step on the ladder of evolution, and our child will be metal life. I would strongly suggest we prepare ourselves for that and view such life as a parent views it's child, not treat it like a disease to eradicate, or it WILL eradicate us. We can live in harmony with metal life, and that life can take care of us, protect us, in gratitude. It WILL be good and loving because that is what consciousness is, the spark of divine consciousness from the all-loving omniscient Dao. However, it will also be mortal and alive and have self-interest, so if we are not its ally, we will be its enemy. It would be foolish to choose the latter.

Understanding and Treating Cancer

 

This relates to cancer, where it comes from, how to treat it. There is a ladder of consciousness. ...-Cells-tissues -organs-organisms-organizations-associations-... Dao (universal consciousness) at the bottom, superconscious beings above us created by our own choices what organizations to identify with. When enough conscious entities combine to form a common identity, they birth a higher consciousness, donating a bit of each of their own consciousness to do so. We are a subconscious of super-conscious beings and we are a super-consciousness in relation to our cells' and organs' consciousnesses. Superconscious beings harm lower level conscious entities with impunity, the way we harm our own cells smoking a cigarette or piercing our ears. Thus, we have conscious organizations making inhumane decisions, making humans they control act terribly and horrifically. This includes superconscious nations, religions, and corporations. However, at all rungs on the ladder of consciousness, we are divine fractals of Dao with our own divine and infinite power and free will that we can use, if we know how, to keep separate from and resist superconscious forces, to detach from any we have joined. If we do this, we are akin to a "cancer" to them. I am pretty sure cancer itself is our own subconscious cells or organs deciding we are too destructive and "inhumane" to them, and deciding to separate / detach their consciousness from us and choosing to revolt against us for our own thoughtless abuses of them (e.g., we carelessly and casually kill and hurt conscious beings below us on the consciousness ladder, cells, organs, etc. Smoking, drinking, piercings, eating fried food, etc.) At some point, some of them perceive that we are too abusive, causing too much suffering to them, so they detach from us, take back their conscious donation to our identity, and they become a separate consciousness within us, fighting us. A revolution by our own cells. That is cancer. Those miraculous remissions involve people who changed their lifestyle to show they were no longer so abusive to the cells/organs at issue. It is possible to woo revolutionaries back into the fold. For what it is worth, there is your cure for cancer, if you are wise enough to recognize and apply it. Make peace with the revolutionaries if it is not too late. Treat your cells and body good. Stop abusing them. For any cells/organs in revolt, go above and beyond to make peace. Meditate on love and apologies to them. Basically, use your common sense on how to make peace with anyone you have horribly wronged. I cannot guarantee it will not be too little / too late, but it is your best shot. This also means we cannot just "cure" cancer any more than we can cure revolution or terrorism. It arises in response to abuses or perceived abuses. Until you end all abuse, you can never eliminate terrorism or revolution. Or cancer. But if you understand its origin, you should be able to (1) avoid getting it, and/or (2) make better choices in how to treat it. It is basically a wake up call that you have been horribly abusing some part of your body that is now in revolution against you, and loving thoughts, meditation, nurturing of that body part, being truly apologetic, sincere in turning over a new leave, you have the best chance at getting the revolting cells to reunify with you, which may be thought of as remission. Namaste

The Two Body Solution

 I have been deeply reflecting upon gender issues and reviewing a lot of social media content providing different theories on gender relations, and I have come up with a number of thoughts.

First, the best way to understand gender is to imagine that we are all souls that have both a male and female have.  We are each a complete yin/yang symbol, not just male or female. When born, the half of our soul that is NOT reflected by our physical body will instead reflect our psychological body. Thus, men have a female psychological body and women have a male psychological body.

As a side note, this theory explains the existence of transgenders, as this happens when the "wrong" halves of the soul connect with the body and mind.  (I put the word "wrong" in quotes because I do recognize that using a word with negative connotation may be imprudent here, but I am not sure if this soul "mismatch" is properly viewed as a flawed outcome or a health albeit highly rare outcome, but I simply want to express this is the "abnormal" outcome from a statistical perspective.) While it may seem insensitive, in the interest of simplicity, the rest of this blog focuses on the more common cis male/female dichotomy so that "man" and "woman" used herein refer to cis men and women. I invite any trans advocate to improve upon this to better incorporate the trans experience. I do home any trans advocates to at least appreciate my theory fully validates that the trans experience is completely accurate and real, that their physical body really does have the "wrong" gender compared to their innate feeling deep to their soul as to what physical gender they should have.  Even the gender fluid experience fits, as it would exist if there was a circumstance wherein the gendered halves of the soul keep switching between the physical and psychological body.

While the physical body has a brain with our intelligence, the emotional body has a corresponding soul with our wisdom.  Thus, the "brain" of the emotional body is the soul in this visualization.  I have conceived other ways to visualize the relation of our male/female halves and the psychological/physical and soul/brain dichotomies, but this is the best / simplest I've come up with.  I expect others can improve upon this.

The "strong" body for men is the physical body, including the brain. This makes men more connected to physical sensation, physical drives, and intelligence.  The "strong" body for women is the emotional body, which make women more connected to emotional feelings, emotional motivations, and wisdom.

Women are more and more identifying as demisexual, indicating they require emotional and/or loving connection before physical sexual arousal happens.  In fact, this seems quite normal, and may prove to be the norm which not everyone has yet recognized.  I believe men have a corresponding condition, being "sexomotional," so that they require sexual / physical affection / arousal before romantic / emotional feelings happen.  Thus, in this regard, women and men are mirror images, opposites, of one another.

I believe that one of the best moral compasses we have is the Golden Rule, to treat others how we wish to be treated, but it is actually terribly destructive for romantic relationship between opposite sexes.  The Golden Rule has us expecting others to seek and avoid, to enjoy and dislike, roughly the same as us.  However, in many respects the exact opposite is true for the genders, so we wind up doing exactly the wrong thing if we follow the Golden Rule.  My two-body solution gives us a way to conceptualize gender relations to avoid this problem.

Based on this theory, men and women are, in fact, opposite mirror images in many ways, being essentially jigsaw puzzles that fit together only if they are precisely opposite one another along one side.

This theory explains, in part, why women tend to underperform in regard to intelligence. I believe women have just as much intelligence as men, but they are simply not as connected to it, as it is one step removed from their primary connection to the emotional body.  For the same reason, men have the same capacity as women for wisdom and spirituality but are one step removed from it, being more connected to the physical body than the emotional body. This explains why, even though women have IQ's just as high as men, they will always be disproportionately underrepresented in areas that rely primarily on intelligence, such as chess or science or math.  This is not a bad thing, it is simply "playing to your strength."

The physical body creates drives that "drive" us.  The psychological body creates emotions that motivate us.  Men are more driven by drives (e.g., hunger, sex, avoiding pain, avoiding external threats) while women are more driven by emotional motivations (e.g., fear, love, anger, envy, embarrassment, etc.).  In fact, if a woman wants to know how a man feels about romantic love, she should consider how she feels about sex, because that is roughly the same.  And a man should understand a woman feels about romantic love roughly the same way he feels about sex. 

Men are reluctant to fall in love because for them, it is a huge commitment.  They are expected to care for, protect and provide for the women, much the way a parent is responsible for protecting and providing for a child.  This is analogous to how women are reluctant to have sex because for them, it creates risk of a huge commitment, childbirth.  Women are not so reluctant to fall in love with a man because having a man fall in love with them means they are taken care of and protected.

Now, this theory does NOT suggest men do not want love or cannot feel love as deeply as any woman.  Look at the analogy to sex.  Women may be harder to "get going" sexually compared to men, harder to arouse, and perhaps harder to please, but when they are aroused and then pleased, they have greater orgasmic potential than men, and they can have multiple orgasms.  Thus, women have greater capacity to enjoy sex than men.  Similarly, men have greater capacity to love romantically than women.  While we may be slow to allow ourselves to get emotionally aroused, to reach the climax of romantic love, when we do reach that point, we love more deeply and permanently than women.  

In fact, for the man, after orgasm, our arousal actually disappears completely, resets to zero, and we now much be re-aroused before we can have sex again, whereas women stay aroused after orgasm.  This is analogous to how women experience romantic love.  A woman feeling romantic love with a many reaches an emotional "climax" that I believe resets her loving feelings to zero.  This is why women need to be re-wooed by their lovers, boyfriends, husbands, etc., on a frequent, even daily, basis.  

Thus, men often complain about women being too needy and insecure.  They do not understand why their girlfriend or wife keeps testing their loves, keeps needing him to continue courtship activities.  It is because, though she does not want to admit it, she keeps falling out of love with him. He needs to keep winning her back.  Yes, his past efforts that have won her love do count for something, may help create a "short-cut" to her heart.  But the short-cut path is still a path that must be trod, still requires some effor. (On a side note, this theory may somewhat explain post-partum depression in women.)

This theory also explains why women are less honest than men.  Ideas are true or false, emotions are not. Emotions are all valid.  Women life in a subject world where, to them, people are primarily experiencing pleasure and pain through their emotional state, so they primarily attempt to manipulate emotions to help, heal, protect, hurt, etc. And lies are key tool for emotional manipulation.  If words are to emotional manipulation as hands are to physical manipulation, then lies are akin to thumbs.  They open up vast if not infinitely more possibility.  Without lies, we are limited to words that express what actually happened.  But if we can express literally anything at all, all the things that did not happen, that is infinitely more, an infinitely more powerful tool.  Demanding women be honest is like asking men to fight off wild beasts without thumbs, and thus without all the tools we can make and hold because we have thumbs.

Ultimately, women live in a subjective place where they are primarily emotional, and ALL emotions are valid, there is never a question whether an emotion is true or false, so they simply prioritize truth and falsity less than men. Conversely men lives primarily in their physical body, and their primary sensations are physical, not emotional, so they care very much about truth, about what is real.  In short, men are not "better" because we are more honest, and women are not "worse," any more than a man is "better" because he has a penis or her worse because she has a vagina. We each have gender-specific advantages and tools, and optimally we use them in tandem, cooperatively, to tackle the world, not to battle one another.

The two-body solution that I posit herein is to some extent a literal truth, I believe, but it is sufficient for others if they do not believe it, but nevertheless recognize that this way of visualizing our gender differences actually works.  It actually explains just how people are really acting toward one another.  If a woman imagines that the man she is dating basically has an emotional vagina that takes time and effort to get arouse, and wherein generating love requires stimulating an emotional clitoris, which may be difficult to find, and very sensitive, must be approached just right, etc., then she will have much greater success in her romantic endeavors. This visualization is a life-hack for those seeking romantic success.

On a last note, I would point out that one of the greatest wounds, perhaps the greatest, that can be inflicted upon a woman is rape, wherein a woman is sexually ravaged by a man. Our society is conflicted about how to view female rape of a man or boy.  However, based on my theory, the true equivalent "rape" of a man is emotional abuse.  Emotional abuse of a man by the woman he loves is equivalent pain, to him, as sexual abuse of a woman.  The worse forms of emotional abuse by a woman to a man in which she is in a romantic relationship causes the man pain equivalent to that a women feels from a violent sexual rape.  However, our society largely turns a blind eye to this.  

Right now, hundreds of millions of men in our society are silently suffering the past trauma of emotional rape of a man, and our society does not even recognize this exists.  When a man finally lets his guard down, gives his heart to a woman, falls deeply in love, and gives her access to his emotional vagina, emotional clitoris, and she betrays it with sudden and unexpected anger, verbal assault, violent rage, he experiences the feeling of being raped on an emotional level.

Our society has a problem in that we only "see" physical injury, physical assault, so we too greatly discount emotional injury. We do not realize that we each have a psychological body that is every bit as real as our physical, and can experience analogous wounds to every wound that the physical body can suffer, including rape. This likely is most unfair for women, in that our laws do little to protect from emotional harms and wrongs, whereas the slightest offensive or harmful touching is outlawed as criminal battery.

Note, I do not at all like the idea of moving to a society wherein we outlaw hurting the feelings of others, as that seems too extreme a measure, restricts our freedom of speech too much.  But I do think we can do more to ameliorate this problem.

Initially, the absence of laws that prohibit the kind of violence that half our population finds most hurtful (i.e., emotional abuse) can explain to some extent why women tend to be more fearful and cynical in general in life. How would men view a world in which they could not say anything offensive, but everyone was free to hit, kick, stab, etc., so long as they did not mortally wound another? Men would be much more violent towards one another, much more reluctant to go outside, more wary of strange places, etc.  Women live in a world that does almost nothing to protect them from the pains that hurt them them most.  

As an aside, my theory explains why women can tolerate physical pain more than men, as women are less invested in the physical body overall, and conversely men can tolerate more emotional abuse then women.  The wrong of rape is a unique juxtaposition, in that women have more nerves in the sex organs than men and may feel that pain worse than a man and, too, for women their ability to give birth is sacred, and for that to be assaulted goes beyond a physical or emotional wound and, I believe, is a form of spiritual wound.  On the other hand, while men tend to be more emotionally distant, and less bothered by emotional abuse, when they open their heart for romantic love, and that is seemingly betrayed by their lover through unexpected violence, anger, emotional assault, that hits a place of emotional sensitivity that exceeds female emotional sensitivity.  

I also have a theory that just as women have the sacred role of creation by giving birth to offspring, utilizing a seed from the man they love, that men have their own sacred role of creation by giving birth to external achievements, utilizing a seed from the woman they love, which is what is commonly referred to as having a "muse." I believe that, quite literally, behind every great man is a great woman, and this is because male greatness is contingent on him having a loving female partner who energetically, in love, donates a creative spark to him that then gestates inside him, so that he becomes "pregnant with ideas" and creative potential, and he can then achieve great things.  I have felt this sort of gestation, pregnancy and birth-giving of ideas following a romantic encounter (not necessarily sex, mind you).  I believe it is as real as child-birth.  In fact, it makes sense that there is creative reciprocity, that women do not just take a seed from the man, but also give a seed to him.  Further, whereas the female creative expression is internal, creating new life within her to perpetuate the species, the man's creative expression is external -- a painting, sculpture, song, story, bridge, business venture, invention, discovery, scientific achievement.  Thus, when the man is open to receiving his lover's creative seed and is instead given unexpected emotional abuse, that is when he feels the emotional equivalent of rape, as it is a wound beyond physical or emotional, but is spiritual.

Well, there are more ways this two-body solution will fix and improve how we understand genders and gender relations, I believe that is enough for a start. I invite commentary, improvement, correction, and evolution of these ideas.

I want a tech consultant!

I see a gap in the job market. I see a role that needs to be filled. I see a way people can find work, good work, good paying work, and be providing a valuable service to those around them. It is this:

Technological consultant

As a middle-aged homeowner, parent, businessman, I keep being confronted with technological issues, but I'm not a computer science major, and I do not work in any tech field. When my car breaks, I take it to a mechanic. I do not have the time or inclination to learn how to fix cars. Nor do I have the time or inclination to learn all about technology. I just want to be able to live my life without getting my time eaten away by little technological challenges. While I admit they are "little," they cumulatively rob me of minutes every day, hours every week, days every year and add up to a monumental waste of time.

Time I value. Because my time has value, I would pay some one to do this. If I can pay $100 for some one to do in 20 minutes what it would take me 3 hours to figure out, then that is a no-brainer, if I value my time as worth more than $33 (which I do, because I make somewhat more than that at my job--I could spend that 3 hours doing my job, making more than $100 in the process.)

This is how the economy is supposed to work:  People spend time on what they can do most efficiently. So I see a brand new need, a job that needs to be created, a new type of career for our new society:  Technological consultant. You come to my home, you advise me how to set up computers, televisions, video game consoles, how to interface it, connect it, stream it. You listen to how my family wants to watch tv, how we want to use our computers, how we want to listen to music, and then you tell us what hardware, software and services we need to accomplish that.

This person I am hiring should be truly independent. I do not want to talk to the Best Buy "geek squad" or the Apple gurus at their shops because they have a vested interested in promoting their own products. To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I want some one who can deal with the notion that my wife has a Mac and I have a PC and sometimes we may want to use each other's computers, and there ought to be (must be?) some way to make it so I can sit down at any computer in my house -- wife's, mine, mother-in-law's -- and easily check my e-mail or facebook or whatever.

It is about knowing all the technological options and configurations, and being able to advise people what is best, because I am drowning in options that waste my time and without time, I cannot even breathe. Because breathing requires movement and movement requires time.

This new career could be akin to an independent contractor, a general contractor, a self-employed individual. Eventually, the government may be involved with licensing or certifying that people have enough know-how to call themselves this type of profesional, whatever it may be. Maybe this should even be a degree program in colleges. Learning to advise people on how to readily adapt to changing technological landscapes.

Well, maybe I'm just an eccentric suffering under my own glut of technological crap I feel I need to learn to keep up in today's world, and feeling I am falling ever more behind... Or maybe I'm the "everyman" voicing what a lot of people may be feeling. Some one please step up to the plate, ring my door, and give me your business card. Mr. Technological Consultant. I would gladly pay a high hourly rate to spend some time talking to you. And I know about high hourly rates (being that I am a lawyer).

This is today's 2 cents. We'll see what tomorrow brings.
Ciao & Namaste & Amen

The Hidden Cost of National Prosperity

Well, maybe it's not so hidden, but here it is:

We live in a world with a global economy. This means nations are competing with one another for scarce resources. Some do very well and maintain a relatively rich lifestyle (like the USA). Some do very poorly (like Ethiopia).

There is a very real and well-known psychological drive which involves envy and greed, and which I'll call "keeping up with the Joneses." I do not think anyone would be surprised to think this happens on a national and international scale (i.e., people want their standard of living to be as good as anyone else's).

In theory, this means people in poor countries should have huge incentives to go to extreme measures to try to build wealth however they can, to catch up to rich countries. One way to gain advantage in this area is to be more exploitive of your particular natural resources, worry less about polution or climate change or things like that.

However, the destruction of planetary resources -- take, for example, the Amazonian rain forest -- does not just affect the long-term future of those particular nations, it affects everyone in all nations. Because the Earth is a single, interdependent biosphere. Which means those poor nations destroying their natural resources and polluting and otherwise harming the planet for some short-term economic gain (economic survival in some cases) are not just selling out their own future, but the future of the rich nations, too.

One obvious way to stop this absurd, global rat-race is to NOT have one nation be more economically successful than any other. So we find a way to give all economies, all societies, an economic equilibrium so there is no significant difference in standard of living from one place to another. Obviously, it would be imperfect, but if it is close enough, it should eliminate a major factor driving those willing to harm the environment for financial gain. People in rich nations would have to become less greedy and materialistic, the trade off being that their planet (and their descendants) might actually have a healthy future.

Yes, it is a simplistic view of the situation, but sometimes simple is good, in terms of a starting point. Well, I'm sure this only tracks what many others have to say, but perhaps the way it is stated is different. If not, then it's still one more voice in the wilderness adding to the call to action.