Said in the '70s... to no effect?

We will see how very important it is to bring about, in the human mind, the radical revolution. The crisis is a crisis in consciousness. A crisis that cannot, anymore, accept the old norms, the old patterns, the ancient traditions. And, considering what the world is now, with all the misery, conflict, destructive brutality, aggression, and so on… Man is still as he was. Is still brutal, violent, aggressive, acquisitive, competitive. And, he’s built a society along these lines.

J. Krishnamurti

Perhaps more than 30 years after these words were spoken I sent them to most of my friends in the form of a video. Some fell asleep on it in the first minute. Some didn't find the time for it, considering the demands of modern life. And in my opinion, all are cases of the omnipresent ADD of the modern man.

I (used to) enjoy sharing and discussing matters of the life. Yet now, my rare occasions of a discussion resembles web surfing. My conversation partner reads through my words and before I could finish my statement follows the links in a word. In less than a minute we're talking about completely different subjects. But just like web surfing, we both have the vague impression that somehow the conversation is still linked to the "home page" we've left of.

EDIT: Initially I didn't want to post the videos just to make it more entertaining to search and find it, for the easily distracted :-)

Farming

Farm·ing
a.

Pertaining to agriculture; devoted to, adapted to, or engaged in, farming; as, farming tools; farming land; a farming community.

Farm·ing
n.

The business of cultivating land.

Or so Webster's Dictionary says. I think I have a vague memory of that. But I am not sure. Think I might have met a farmer once, and he was doing exactly that, but it was early in my childhood and my memory wasn't well formed.

Farming is the killing of monsters for the purpose of gathering items, experience, gold, Faction, or promotion points and is considered to be one of the quickest and easiest ways to amass wealth.

Ah, now that sounds more familiar. You learn more about it here.

So yes, I do like playing video games and I happen to play Guild Wars, why that and not something else is besides the point (they're all the same). Now let's go back to the dictionary again:

game
n.

An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

So... who exactly was the sick mind behind the idea of "farming" in video games? I can imagine the following discussion in a team developing games:

"- Oh shit! We worked 5 years on this game and the test users finished it in 10 hours! What do we do? What do we do?"
" - Oh well... we can't provide new content, that would actually mean working to make the game interesting and exciting. And even if we did that for a month or two, we definitively don't want to do that for the next two years! I mean that would mean us really working on the thing!"
" - Yeah, but what to keep our players busy with while we monthly take money out of their accounts for doing nothing?"
" - Well... I know! We can make them like work!"
" - Work?"
" - Yeah, you know like when you have a daily job and you have to go mine for ore or something."
" - Hmmm... mine for ore. So we just put some ore mines here and there... oh I have an even greater idea make the mining succeed or fail randomly! I mean it's not like a real miner in a mine, though some of them were dying weren't they?"
" - Yeah, that's a great idea! If we make mining to give in return random items and the cool ones will be rare I bet players will just mine forever hoping to get the rare items. I mean you know hope dies last!"
" - Excellent! That should keep many busy, but how about those that don't like mining?"
" - Oh well... make them farm!"

Brilliant, just brilliant. From game "an activity providing entertainment or amusement" to "mining and farming". Brilliant I tell you. No one would ever want to farm or mine in RL (that is Real Life) but they would all do it online! As if the modern man has so much free time and his job is not "job" enough, so we need to give modern man another "job" for the spare time.

---

WTF? Really! WTF are you people doing? WTF are you gamers doing? Farming? And WTF are you game developers doing? Throwing work at people and *charging* them for working??? And making millions while at it?

I want a *game* I am *not* looking for a job! And I find mining and farming to be crappy jobs even if i was looking for one.

When are you going to have... ?

A physical check?... No.
An eye check?... No.
A dental check?... No.
Time to rest and have fun?... No.

So, we went home for the holidays, we are still in our 20s and most of the people, some I cannot even call friends, some I cannot even call acquaintances asked us the same question: "When are you going to have kids?".

Wtf? I don't go to people I barely know to ask them that. I don't go to friends to ask them than either, what would I care? It's not like I am going to raise and educate their kid, or like they are doing me any personal favor by having one.

And I just don't get this. So if you get married that means you have to deliver... and I mean you have to, there is absolutely no other reason for getting married, is there!?

And I really don't understand this question. Maybe I am too pragmatic and plastic, but am I actually asked in which nights we choose to have sex and not use any contraceptive methods? Or what exactly does this question mean?

I can just imagine people planning like: "oh well, I want to deliver a kid around 26th of December, so minus 8 months and some weeks that would mean we have to start from around the middle-end of April... so oh boy, April is going to be a very exciting month. Can barely wait to tell my wife!"... Tada! ????
And you know what is freaking me out? I suspect some people actually do that.

But in case you have forgotten we are kind of like "one too many" on this planet. And since I am very much aware of this, here's my answer to "When are you going to have a kid?":

"When are you planning to die? So that you make some room."

PS: And if you want a kid and can't wait to get it, that's your problem... so get busy with your sexual partner (whoever that is)... and stop asking. Really, it's offensive and intrusive and none of your business.

Dumbledore vs Burma

I recently wrote my first reaction when I've heard that Dumbledore is gay here. So let me elaborate.

I believe it is part of being human that curiosity is rose by absurd, and a new title like "Dumbledore is Gay!" is absurd enough to get you read it. It happened to me as well. Also part of being human is the big probability that by the time you finished to read the absurd news you forgot that it was the absurd title that got you reading it and you get engaged in discussions on the user comments part of the site presenting the news as if it was actually "real" and something to be concerned about.

So there you go, all these reactions of teenagers (which by the way, are more likely not to be able to tell the difference between fact and fiction) and grownups about how Dumbledore is gay and how bad or good that is.

In the mean time people in Burma die. The news titles suggests that there is a bloody revolt of some sort happening in Burma. But this is not absurd is it? This does not attract ones attention as much as Dumbledore. Why? Because this is actually "normal" and we have gotten used to things like this happening everyday.

And this is truly sad! Because if we react to absurd news, we don't react to "normal" news like human rights violations in different parts of the world, or worse, people being killed because they fight for these basic rights for them and/or for their children.

Now why I do I care about what actually happens in Burma today and I am not very concerned about the sexual orientation of fiction characters?

Because it reminds me of Romania 20 years ago. It reminds me of the people that would give their lives for freedom. And I do not think the western world today understand what that means anymore.

It means that you wake up in the morning, you wash your face, you dress up, you think about all the injustice that happens to you, to your friends, to your family and you know they will all happen again today. But you also know that today you are not going to take it anymore, you also know that today you are so fed up with it that you would rather die than living one more day lacked by your freedom to be.

So you tie your shoes, you kiss your children and go in the streets marching for freedom. And you know you might not be back. And they know you might not be back. But you have to do it, if not for you, then for them waiting at home, hoping you will be back. And most probably he/she was never back.

Now just take a look at another part of the world. The most important, how they like to think of themselves: US. How many people in the US would have the strength to defend their freedom with their life? To be honest I think if the personal freedoms in the US would be threatened (and they are) they would sit on their fat asses and read about Dumbledore. The only thing that might get them to react would be a ban on McDonalds most probably. Europe is a bit different as people do react more asking their rights and not taking in all the crap from politicians, like the recent strike in France. But still...

Anyway I don't think that this is the fault of anybody. It might be the fault of the society for improper education, but not even that. Simply it is hard to understand what happens in Burma if you never experienced something similar. And this is the saddest thing. And this is why it is more interesting if Dumbledore is Christian or Muslim or heterosexual or homosexual.

And that person I was talking before, never came back home... and nothing in Burma has changed because of their sacrifice. Just that some parents are left without their child, or some children without their parent all in the dream of freedom. And the world leaders sleep well at night very aware of all that happens, and we sleep well at night not aware of much.

And Dumbledore is gay, and that is outrageous. Or is it?

Dreaming about the past (answer to criticism)

The usual critique for this blog contains a few statements that I'd like to answer to.

The first one, and perhaps the most important is that we dream too much about the past. "You see the past in such an ideal light" - and that is wrong.

As a matter of fact, I would say that there is NOTHING to dream about the past societies. The past societies did nothing to preserve the earth, as a matter of fact, the effects of the past societies are the ones that we endure now! So no, we don't have an ideal light over the past societies, but we do mourn the nature as it was in the pre-industrialized world. We do love our computers, our life-span of over 70 years and our health - and we are healthy since it does take more than an epidemic to kill hundred of thousands of people. Of course, we still have epidemics that kill a lot of people (look at the HIV epidemic), but that is somewhat different, since this epidemic looks rather human inflicted than nature-inflicted. We have now the cleanest water in history - because we know how to clean it up and all, and we have it bottled. It's not cheap, but health is important - the fun fact is that having the cleanest water in history we still drink the most poisonous stuff like chemically created carbonated sodas. But, aside all that, we are healthier.

The second criticism against this blog and against people like us goes with the fact that we are too critical. There are wheels spinning, the people are starting a new trend - a 'save the planet' trend. Well, I don't believe that there is really a 'save the planet' trend, but there sure is a 'look at me trying to save the planet' trend going on. So is this true that we are too critical? Perhaps we are. Perhaps we are talking about stuff that contradict too much our own lives, and perhaps we should do more, talk less, and do that silently. Well, my guess is that this is not possible. That we can't have surgery without the blade cutting the skin - and we can't just ignore the facts that we see. We talk about them because we want people to know, and spread the word. We see other people moving stuff, we see other people thinking great things, and we try to spread the word. It's the least we can do.

We do criticise, but there is no progress without critique. As a matter of fact, we evolved like this because we didn't criticise the ways we did evolve. We did grow fast, but it was better a slow evolution that would put us at peace with our own house. And here comes the ancient wisdom that we talk about in our blogs. Because our society is now affected by gluttony, greed and desires and all these are coming back against us to hit like a hammer. We are the victims of the past societies. But now it's too late to criticise them, so we criticise ourselves.

We are biased, some say. I've read some weeks ago an article written by Vaclav Klaus that said that not the climate is at risk, but the freedom of thought. He is true, as far as he is concerned. The idea that the climate change is a propaganda might be true, and I took some time to think this over. But somehow it seems quite different the world we live in, and I know for sure that weather is a whole lot different nowadays and a few years ago (like the '80s). Of course, Mr. Klaus argues with the arguments of a person that fought the totalitarian movement of the soviets, but perhaps this is not the case. You choose for yourselves. But even the most ardent opponents of the 'global warming' did shift in time - from denying the phenomena to stating now that 'humans have nothing or too little to do with it'.

And we have some harsh proves. I am not talking about some politician's movie, but I think that anyone who lived in New Orleans does have a say or two about the global warming. The phenomena is there. The question is: do we accept it and try to get over it? Or do we just fight for our freedom of speech (which I don't see in what way is affected) and die of some desert disease in our temperate-climate homes?

Yes, I have some unruly thoughts about some oponents of the global warming. I never thought I would hear this, but I hear more often: "but warmer is better!". And I fail to see it - I fail to see why warmer is better. You don't die of cold... but you do die of heart-attack at high temperatures. So where's the gain?

And even if we didn't have these effects on our hands, think about it more. Would you start a gasoline-based car in your apartment? Would you ride your motorbike in your apartment without a breath of fresh air? Point is that the current environment is damaging our health, and sure, we do survive more, but it's survival what we do.

So if there is something to criticise, don't criticise the ideas. It's so silly to criticise the existance of global warming now, but soon global warming will become textbook issue. You know, the kind of things that you learn in the first grade. And you may say that this is pure propaganda, but then again 1+1 equals 2 is pure propaganda as well (and people that finished some mathematics-oriented sections of universities know that what I say is true, and 1+1=2 is quite a different thing).

As I remember, it's George Orwell that said that 'freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4'. The freedom to state the obvious. And this is the obvious.

If there is something to criticise, criticise the methods that are used to clean the Earth. Please do.

Perhaps there are many points I left out of this. There is still a lot more to talk about, but questions are welcome :)

PS: Since we talked about freedom of thought and global warming, a reaction (translated from romglish to english):
(3:37:56 PM) Teo: i'm back. again
(3:38:06 PM) Dorin: Welcome
(3:38:07 PM) Dorin: You have a link (with the new post, my note)
(3:38:13 PM) Teo: I saw
(3:40:23 PM) Teo: it's too hot to think
(3:40:51 PM) Dorin: :D
(3:40:57 PM) Dorin: it's about being too hot to think
(3:40:57 PM) Dorin: :P
(3:41:02 PM) Teo: i know