But age becomes the predator
A war between what is and was,
No kindness, fear, or place to bind us
A history unkind to fatal flaws;

The power of the word is love
The power of the word is joy
The power of the word is hate
The power of the word is lies
The power of the word is truth
And spur our spirit’s endless flight

The family man seeks hope and dreams
A legacy for future bright
Of better days and fields of schemes
And fortitude to see things right

Past and present blur together
Days fall like soldiers off to battle
What once was then is soon forgotten
A history unkind to banter

The power of the deed is now
The power of the deed is action
The power of the deed was then
The power of the deed is sloth
The power of the deed is truth
It spurs our physical delight

Society’s a loose connection
Between the mob and our recollection
The truth of moment’s single vision
A recipe for our protection

The slippery slope of man’s insight
Collective conscious of vagueness hence
Pull future strings of our intention
A history shattered in our defense

The power of the thought is how
The power of the thought is who
The power of the thought laid low
The power of the thought not told
The power of the thought is truth
To spur our mental model’s height

We do not sing, in choir song,
We do not grow, just with the flow,
We do not stand, but in a row
We laugh and belch and fart and cry
We pat ourselves until we die
To spur our innovative might

The power of truth is in the words
The power of truth is acts and deeds
The power of truth is pure of thought
The power of truth is found and lost
The power of truth is you and me
Amid ten billion voices

– Kevin Feenan

Seriously – think about this for a moment. Are we the type of species that could, knowing full well life existed elsewhere in the galaxy, resist the temptation to meddle?

Almost all of our explorations throughout history have been with the express purpose of finding and returning with something of value. Once found, the ‘gold rush’ is on even if there is plenty of it in our own backyard.

Europe had more than enough room for civilization in 1492, but when Christopher Columbus sailed to the new world, we had to accumulate more.

Diamonds which have now been found in Northern Canada have sparked a new mineral rush to the Arctic even though there are plenty to be found elsewhere in the world.

Existing oil reserves are plentiful enough to get us by the development of new technologies that no longer require us to rape the earth but we insist on doing it anyways.

If we are to explore the Universe, could we realistically do this when our technology is always just on the cutting edge of getting us to that shiny object in front of us but yet leave it alone if it proves to be something our ethic tells us we shouldn’t touch?

For example, let us assume for a moment that Gilese 581g is eventually discovered to have a moon which is approximate in size and mass to that of our Earth. For those not in the know, Gilese 581g is a planet approximately 4-5 times the size of our earth, sits in the habitable zone, and is less than 100 ly away from our solar system.  If it had a moon with the same proportions as our moon, then we have just found probably one of the best potential planets to send a mission in order to explore for life.

If we found it thou – some type of pre-nuclear civilization – what would we do? Simply turn around and go home? Or would the compulsion to explore (meddle) be too much?

Most likely we wouldn’t have much of a choice. In the development of our technology we have typically taken a minimalist approach such that we carry with us just enough to do the job at hand and very little to spare.  Explorers off to the continent of Australia picked up fresh supplies along the way. Finding green shores would typically mean we would want to avail ourselves of whatever is available for trade or plunder.

Getting to Gilese 581g and finding plants and animals – I doubt very much that any explorer would be willing to simply walk away without having the opportunity to touch down.  As much as people would like to think that the morals of Star Trek would be the pervasive attitudes that would carry us into space flight, the reality is that the search for knowledge is tempered by a quest for value and rarity.

We are all looking for the bigger, better deal and without some form of control on our more basic human desires, we just simply cannot control that urge to open Pandora’s box once where know where it is.

It is our history.

Does that make us a grievously savage race? Possibly. Its hard to tell without comparison to other cultures which have done the same.  Unfortunately, as Carl Sagan pointed out in his series Cosmos, the meeting of other cultures would surely be one sided, with either them or us being vastly superior in technology.

Maybe there is a galactic police out there whose job it is to protect lesser races. Maybe the law of the land is conquer or be conquered. The rush to meet aliens could result in an exchange of culture with technological benefits for the whole of humanity or it could result in enslavement.

Hawkins wants to suggest that we shouldn’t draw as much attention to ourselves on the basis of how it worked out for the native North Americans.  I’m not so sure. There are as many possibilities for cultural exchange out there as there are likely to be stars in the sky. We can only control what we can control. What it is in our power to affect.

I think that at some point in the next several years, we need to start determining who we are as a species. Earth as a holistic culture – what are our values. How do we want to be perceived among the races that inhabit the galaxy. What ethos do we take with us. What compromises are we prepared to make. What sacrifices.

For example, what do we consider to be our ‘territory’ in this region of the galaxy? Everything within 50 lys? 100? Can we apply our tenets of international law to the way we interact with other species? Are we even entitled to the resources available within our own solar system?

When you are the only known sentient race within 100 lys of your home planet, the answers are pretty clear cut. But what do you do when the inhabitants of Gilese 581g come knocking on your door one day and inform you that your probes to Mars are an infringement on their rights in this sector?

It may be another 500 years before we make first contact as a society. But seeing how the human race is slow to change, it certainly wouldn’t be premature to start to think in terms of a galactic collective of which Earth is a part.

And maybe – just maybe – we can find the strength to work through our own local differences in the process when they are finally seen to be so small in comparison to what is awaiting us out there.

– Kevin Feenan

The big Ikea news however is that on December 7th, Ikea will be opening their biggest store in Canada in Ottawa, Ontario. I’m sure there will be at least a dozen missing person’s reports filed shortly thereafter. If you don’t hear from me by Christmas – send a search and rescue party.

In looking for information on the new store however I came across this gem and nearly coughed up my milk through my nose when I started reading it.

Store return policy

If you’ve changed your mind and are not entirely satisfied with your purchase, simply return the unused item within 45 days for an exchange or refund. A receipt and the item’s original packaging are required for all returns and exchanges.

Now I don’t know about you but pretty much everything Ikea makes seems designed to not be returnable in its original packaging (other than the aforementioned tea candles). I mean – come on – when was the last time you managed to get that bookshelve out of the cardboard container without the room looking like it was hit by a 5 year old on christmas morning?

And after all the nailing and screwing and gluing – by the time you figure out something is wrong – it ain’t going back in the package even if you were careful enough to gingerly peel back the ends of the box and slide the contents out with all the bits of styrofoam meticulously accounted for. I mean really – when was the last time Ikea put instructions for getting the damn thing BACK in the box in case you need to return it.

I know – I know – getting the unit back in the box doesn’t involve an alan key and therefore the Ikea instructional creators wouldn’t know how to put all the little diagrams together anyways. Heck – it took an investment in 45 production facilities in 12 different countries to get it into that little tiny box in the first place. That is beside the point!

You would think that a $31B company as advanced as Ikea would see reason in something as silly as a return policy that can never actually be fulfilled by the people purchasing products there. It’s like we use to say in the 1990s when people bought GE products. You might as well buy two because the product is so cheap as to have no merit being repackaged and returned if it breaks.

Having said that – I have some Akurum Wall cab horizontal w glass door, birch, Ädel beech, cabinets to buy for my office. (only 22 more days – only 22 more days – only 22 more days ……..)

- Kevin Feenan

The aforementioned post is in no way an endorsement of Ikea or its products despite the authors predisposition for Ikea book shelves which are far too numerous to count. And before you ask – no I won’t help you figure out the damn instructions. Its a right of passage – deal with it. :P

It is for these reasons that the future is difficult. Not only do we need to overcome the challenges put in our path but we also need to overcome the failings of our own society. We make choices based on the margins of what confronts us at each individual moment.

Let’s take something very basic. You are at the gas station and in the process of getting gas for your car you decide you are thirsty. What do you do? Most gas stations in North America have beverage options ranging from a public water fountain to bottled drinks. The bottled drink itself may be more appealing but consider what went into bringing that bottle to the shelf.

Petroleum turned into plastic, washed, coloured, moulded, labelled, pressurized, packaged, packing labelling, transportation, storage, distribution, and refrigeration. And that is all before it gets to your mouth to be consumed in anywhere from 2-5 minutes. Then we have the problem of disposal – garbage, recycling, transportation, sorting, washing, chipping, repackaging, reprocessing, etc.

If we extend the actions of each characters in the play that is our thirst at a moment in time, what we find is that the threads are highly varied, dynamic, and near impossible to track fully.  So a simple future goal such as improving the environment for future generations is not as simple as it sounds when faced with these particular types of choices.

The mind can only hold so many pieces of information at one time. And this was a very simple example. To extrapolate this type of analysis to every decision that people make, at all times, is well beyond individual comprehension no matter how noble the goal.

Yes the future is bright, however
no one promised it would be easy.
If it was, everyone would be doing it.

In order to shape the future one must train themselves to think differently. It is not a matter of trying to hold all of these different ideas in your head but rather to emphasis which set of pre-conceptions are more important when faced with a general classification of problem.

What do I mean by that? Simply put, people run on auto pilot unless we see a situation which requires us to evaluate a choice. Think on this for a moment: in the last 10 car trips you’ve taken, how many of them can you remember the details of? Probably not many, and those that do come to mind will normally be the result of something unusual that happened on the way to work or wherever it was you were going.

The same as we drive on auto-pilot until something out of the ordinary happens, the way we make decisions about whether to drink from the fountain or buy a cola is also an in-grain auto response to our environment that has developed over time. Unless we see that choice as being something unusual – outside of our normal experience requiring a new way of thinking.

At that point, learning begins and we shape the future as a result. Not through trying to convince others to see things the way we do, but to influence others to see the act itself as being unusual compared to the standard mental model they already have. People will make up their own minds as a result. After all, the future is not about doing what is right for you, but what is right for them, in their circumstances, with their environmental factors, within their social network.

And this is why the future is so difficult to change – that tiny choice between cans and cardboard, bottles and plastic, is tempered by 7 billion voices all of which see the world differently than you do. In aggregate, the mob builds up critical mass and then one day we find that what we believed was okay one day is no longer the case the next. People can and do change as a result.

Does that mean that your tiny effort in a sea of voices will go unheard or un-noticed? No – it just means that until other people see the issues of the world as errata to be re-written within their consciousness, the amount of effort will be proportional to the number of minds that remain closed. People are highly observant however and in living a new way of doing things, you’ve already stimulated a closed mind when they see you doing something unusual that no one else is doing.

And that my friend is why the future is bright.

It doesn’t take changing every mind. Critical mass can be built up with as little as 12% of the total population you need to persuade to see things differently. It is a straight forward application of exponential mathematics and social networks.

When the average person introduces a new concept to their social network, between 2-3 people will be open minded enough to share the idea with someone else, who in turn will share it with someone else. At 12% penetration, a new idea only requires 2-3 new introductions before global consciousness shifts and a new paradigm is engrained.

So here’s to the future. Live it and change the world.

– Kevin Feenan

I have but one thing to say on the matter:

John de Lancie as Dr. Who

Oh to have seen that happen at the height of his “Q” days. The one person that probably could have rivaled Tom Baker as the definitive persona of the illustrious Doctor. Not to mention the absolutely dark and terrible places that type of a match could have led to.

If you can’t take a little bloody nose, maybe you oughtta go back home and crawl under your bed. It’s not safe out here. It’s wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it’s not for the timid

If that doesn’t wrap up what Dr. Who is capable of in terms of the exploration of the human condition and his own soul I don’t know what is.

Its one of the other things that has bothered me about Dr. Who thou. The consistent hints of what the Dr. is really capable of and then to only see the cartoon version as if the adults in the room are still too child-like to see the real horrors that lie beneath the fabric of reality.

Good bedtime reading but after 40 years of following the Doctor – I for one want more substance and less whimsy.

Alas – it is the BBC so I guess we’ll just have to make due.

– Kevin Feenan

Let’s assume for a moment that both 2012 and 2060 represent significant turning points in human consciousness. Most religious prophesies indicate the coming of a new golden age after this period of fire and rebirth. In order to be reborn however one has to grow through some psychological trauma which effectively shatters old root beliefs in order to make way for new and healthier thinking.

Consider the alcoholic for a moment (or any addiction really). In order for that person to change it is not enough for the person to want to change. They need to shatter the root beliefs that are the trigger for drinking responses in the first place. Otherwise what you wind up with is simply will power self imposed over top of a cycle of behavior that really hasn’t changed. This is the reason why most people with additions, even if they have been ‘clean’ for decades tend to go back to the point they would have been at had they never stopped the addictive process in the first place. Because the root belief on which that person bases their reality upon never really changed.

The cycle of addition is fairly straight forward. Some type of emotional or psychological pain brought about through disillusionment (i.e. an inability to have justified true belief in alternative patterns of behavior) leads to a sense of entitlement and demand for relief via the self destructive tendencies. Such relief will form the symptoms of the addition until such time as dissatisfaction settles in. This dissatisfaction may be in the form of shame or guilt which either accompanies the addictive behavior or leads to promises of amending the self destructive behaviors. This may mask the original disillusionment if the root beliefs have not changed which eventually lead to the patterns of behavior eventually reasserting themselves.

In order to understand Armageddon we must first understand what it is we are addicted to: power, capitalism, nationalism, control, ideology, religious dogma. Any one of these could be the basis on which there may be a need for a global intervention. As a number of prophesies address the idea that it will be the 3^rd rebuilding of Soloman’s Temple I choose to focus on concepts related to nationalism which will be called into question. This is in part because the will to rebuild Soloman’s Temple would only be an undertaking that would be possible through nationalistic after some conflict in the area settled the land ownership rights in one form or another.

I further chose the idea of nationalism as the principles by which religious fervor and zealotry is built up in order to send people to war is almost exclusively established on principles of ‘us’ verses ‘them’. Rather than looking upon society as a cohesive whole, most conflicts are built on the principles of power, access to scarce resources, and control of populations which is most easily accomplished through a systematic rhetoric of group think based on simple principles of what makes ‘us’ better from ‘them’ .

• We are Americans – they are terrorists.
• We are Christians – they are unholy.
• We are enlightened – they are primitive.

Beyond this however the previous two world wars appear to have been wars of nationalism with the rise of nationalist sentiment rising out of world war 1 to a fevered pitch during world war 2. Today we are seeing extremisms taking root as counter-cultures within nation states which is a far more difficult beast to slay. The ‘enemy’ has no geographical borders and as a result everyone becomes suspect. Whereas before there were clear geographical lines, today the roots of the new nationalism is buried in the backyard of all counties.

In order to fight the beast what we (potentially) need to give up is nationality. We are all one race. But that is a very big pill for people to swallow and likely will continue to be until people realize just how small this planet truly is.

So how would Armageddon come about? Likely through a series of escalating conflicts which focus more broadly on the subjugation of populations based on racial profiling. I realize that is an unpopular concept at the moment but if you think about it for a moment it makes sense. If the last 10 attempts to blow up the nation’s capital have all consistently been by Muslims (or Chinese or Hispanics or Neo-Nazis or Mormons, or field mice, or whatever) then sooner or later people are going to take the hint that stopping people who are of African descent in the street isn’t going to solve the problem simply because you are afraid of offending someone’s sensibilities.

The problem is not the one-off conflict. Rather it is a systematic process of 1000 cuts that leads to an extremist position in mainstream political systems and is very difficult to back down from. While the solution is not to get there in the first place, the principles of extreme nationalism can lead to a form of group think that, by the time people realize what has happened, it is already too late to reverse course. The energy needs to burn itself out. In the case of WW II, that resulted in the deaths of 60M lives. For the next series of wars there is no reason to think that the cost will be in the 100s of millions.

Herein becomes the problem. In the past, when populations rebelled, they did so against a political system that had essentially the same weapon arsenal as the uprising population. Today, political leaders have access to weapons of mass destruction at their disposal that can be launched in relative security remotely. The tables are no longer balanced. And that is what makes the next set of wars so devastating – not the fact that they happen but who it is that will eventually pay the price.

There is a theory of social cycles that suggests there is a pattern to social upheaval. Societies are ruled by military regimes, then intellectuals, then acquisitors (capitalists) and finally for a very brief moment in time, laborers. This cycle is known as the Sarkar Theory of social cycles and if the pattern holds, the next big revolution will be lead by laborers. So what is a little revolution here or there?

The problem is this: the blue collar class is the one that actually make the world work. So if you use massive retaliatory tactics against your agricultural base, for example, then who is going to sow the fields to produce wheat or rice to feed people? Where are the medicines going to come from? Who is going to triage patients or run the water waste reclamation plants?

The process isn’t going to happen all at once. Likely the conditions under which this type of doomsday scenario will take years before it happens. Similar to the recovering alcoholic there will be periods of violent outbursts followed by passive-aggressive responses to solve the underlying problems. However where such issues are couched in the language of diplomacy such that the true underlying causes cannot be agreed to, much less reconciled, these solutions would be like putting a band-aid over a 6” knife wound. It will not last.

Global consciousness changed radically during both World War I and World War II. Should another such conflict erupt it would similarly change global consciousness again only this time we have the conflicts of several thousand cultures which are all interconnected via the Internet. A populist uprising wouldn’t necessarily start in any one particular location but rather using the principles of mob dynamics would like erupt at similar time frames around the world. A war with no geographical boundaries but for which the only tool that governments have to fight it is nationalism.

What causes this uprising? Most likely a backlash from fascist elements of national and transnational corporations which are being supported through the democratic process in the name of moderation. Principles of copyright and ownership which are entangled with the idea of Freedom of Speech but for which only serve to restrict the rights of individuals to envision, communicate, and seek out new ideas and information. The escalating encroachment on personal liberties to the point of totalitarianism under the disguise of a free and open society.

With 7-8 billion people on the planet the first battles will be for rights to resources. As the conflicts escalate to the point where leaders are willing to take larger and more dangerous actions that impact the entire world, not just a specific regions, people will start to go into collective shock over exactly what our nationalistic tendencies have wrought upon us. Collective disillusionment will leave cultures susceptible to ‘false prophets’ as cultures look for a way to recover and regroup. And it will be the shattering of this illusion that could trigger the final battle as a smaller population starts to realize in a global identity.

This is not an overnight process however and looking at a 40-50 year time horizon between the initial confrontations and resolution of those conflicts would not be out of question based on historical trends and the fact that time needs to be given for a new generation with new ideas opportunity to come to power and influence in their own right.

——

Do I believe in all this? I neither believe nor disbelieve – it is a thought experiment and one for which the timeframe between 2012 and 2060 seems to be viable based on the way our society is headed. Personally I’d like to think we are better than this but the whole of human history seems to be against cultures being able to do the right thing for the right reasons at the right time.