I was thinking something similar about J. Titor, especially when he speaks of the statues of 'countryside generals' who preach self-reliance, but you can see this more clearly than me. I thought of him as perhaps a Southerner, or perhaps a computer Geek who didn't like city life for some reason and was hence drawn to this Southern 'romantic moral victory against the odds' fantasy. I've seen this theme in many science-fiction video games too, though the southern-style general is usually the bad guy there.
Actually Titor only posted on the internet for a couple of years and then claimed to have 'returned' to the future, leaving a trail of predictions, so people could see whether or not he was telling the truth, and prepare accordingly. I treat it as a kind of very interesting fiction, a practical joke to get people to see things more his way. His photos and manual of the time machine were shown to be digital edits of other documents, without much benefit of the doubt remaining. What makes it interesting is that no-one has yet admitted to posing as Titor.
I've always had the impression that the South is more emotionally inclined and romanticises the past, whereas the North is more 'modern' and forward looking. I see Bush as playing to his supporters in the South and their sense of pride, also making the north less rationally inclined as he does so.
I see what you mean about the morality catch 22. I see it as a kind of social medicine- too much and there is mental paralysis and superstition- not enough and life simply starts to lose its sense of value, criminality and false values start to run rampant. The only real morality has to come from within, but of course it also has to be taught to people (rather than by controlling them). I think art and movies are good examples of this teaching method, especially when they encourage people to think for themselves.
As for Dark Ages I think they do have a purgative affect- I think they are part of the cycle. I agree that they serve to protect the planet- perhaps legendary societies like 'Atlantis' got so decadent they simply had to end. Yet, they are also very wasteful in the sense that after them not only the wheel is reinvented.
I read the story of our present time as the beginnings of nations merging into a World State, reaching an organic maturity. It may start out ruled by illegitimate governments (the 'antichrist' stuff religious fundamentalists talk so much about) but I expect those will be transcended. We are kind of in the middle of that stage, so even if there are more massive shocks to the world, I expect this trend to continue until complete. It seems to me to be the human will of the moment, and treaties which limited nuclear arms and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, etc. confirm this decision. Also, our technology and culture is very internationalised now, such as the internet, or even the presence of various brands and companies. None of this guarantees survival of our civilization, but this rapid evolution says to me that it is largely in a state of growth and has yet to peak.
I think the advent of a dark age is heralded by massive decadence, and probably this comes when the spark of inspiration is dimmest. There can only be growth or entropy, it seems, and stasis can't exist in a universe predicated on constant change. Perhaps such an age will exist on this planet in around 3,000 more years, and the product of too much labour being offloaded onto cloned workers, bred simply to service the countless machines, enfeebling the human mind. Or perhaps we will have evolved to the point at which we are unrecognisable, and are exploring other planets regularly. Or perhaps I'm wrong, and it'll take place next year?
Whatever the future brings, it is sure to be interesting. It is sure to be at least slightly different than what we expect. And if I am right there are in fact many possible futures, all existing concurrently at this moment.
Which one will we chose (assuming we do in fact choose)?
Which one will choose us?
No comments:
Post a Comment