In a way this track is somewhat related to this topic. I'm going to get into the needs of people, the needs of the universe, and why the needs of one are objectively far more important than the other, why you're a terrible person for disagreeing with that, and how even those of us who believe the whole is most important are complete hypocrites.
The needs of humans
As individuals: As individual human beings, I think it would be safe to say that considering the needs of others does leave less for the individual. This leads to my core issue with society in this country, and for that matter the world, and perhaps it's just instinctive, but it's disgusting on so many levels. People who strive for self-success (and, to an extent we all do) often think only of themselves, and I feel that this attitude is not only the most deplorable moral outlook on life, this "take what I want, kill others and the environment by doing so, and preserve my happiness by ignoring suffering" (more on that in a minute), "and do whatever to whomever" attitude, but I feel it's become far more prevalent in recent time. These are the kinds of people who own shares in companies like Philip Morris international, willing to sue a government over regulation, and willingness to sell them to anyone in any place that they legally can. How few people are making money, and how many are dying? I personally get disgusted by Diamond commercials, because I think it's wrong to financially support violence over something shiny! And now, the culture as a whole is being taught this mentality to divide those who need each other so that the people in power can keep as much as they can! When I recently saw an Episode of Bill Maher, I turned it off at about this point:If you can't tell me what was racist about someone telling people they have to act differently because their skin color is different, you're racist and probably technically retarded (meaning literally, it's an actual objective term that refers to a certain intelligence quotient level), but I don't think Ice Cube knows he's technically racist just like he probably has no idea rap isn't technically music. First of all, why does this country still preach and implement the ideas of eugenics? I do find it rather odd that people think the Democratic Party has changed so much since the days they were literally known as "the white man's party," considering "white" and "black" are both eugenics terms, eugenics being the very backbone of white supremacy, and I hear about "black" and "white" all the time from them. I'm not saying there aren't more malignant or even malicious racists in the "Republican Party" of today, but I am saying that if you support one of the two major parties, you support racism, whether you ascribe to it or not. This idea of helping as many people as we can as spread by the media and politicians, really ties back to a sociopathic/psychopathic egoist's conquest of exploitation. Why? Because evolution dictates that those incapable of survival should die, and yet "doing the right thing" is preserving people who should be dead, not for the sake of the one preserved, but for the sake of keeping another consumer around to work to death and milk for money, and it just strokes one's ego by manipulating those unintelligent masses. An explosive, like a firecracker, shouldn't need a warning label telling you not to hold it while it's lit, you're supposed to die if you're that stupid, that's just a fact. You shouldn't feel sorry for people like that, because you're stroking the idiot's ego, and therefore filling the wallets and stroking the egos of the wealthy, by validating people when they should not be...
As a species: As homosapien sapiens, we have to consider what we mean by best for the species: do we mean reaching our largest population, or lasting as long as we can? Let's take a different approach: what's best for the largest portion of humans we have here and now? We can't have all three, but let's start in order from the most egotistical and speciesist views to the least, and as we go along we'll transition into what's best for the the most biological entities and the universe, because my opinion is that the best option for us is actually the least species-centered of our options for survival as a species, but as an Atheist, I don't really believe in an objectively wrong answer. What's best for the people here and now? This is the most selfish option we can choose by far, the idea that the needs of the human alive today outweigh the needs of any other living thing. This mentality is directly responsible for rapid destruction of the planet, however, we have enough resources we've already raped out of the planet to take better care of people we do have. I am against suffering, and was recently disturbed by the increase in funding of Yemeni genocide and terrorism by the United States through supplying Saudi Arabia with even more to kill with, this is part of why the band released the track we did, some of those samples give an idea of the disgusting mistreatment humans receive. Our predominant politician sample in the track above came from this speech by Rand Paul, which I actually felt was very important:
This doesn't mean I agree with Rand 100% of the time, but you shouldn't dismiss him because he ran in the "Republican" primaries, in fact, never dismiss an idea, if it exists, even if entirely delusional, it has real world consequences, try and look at all the arguments, and find the truth for yourself. It is wrong to let people needlessly suffer, when we clearly have the resources to cause the suffering, we certainly have the means to at least decrease it without serious long-term repercussions, but egoism and a desire for control seem to be blocking us from doing so. That said, if we were all doing so well, the planet would not be, but we can certainly cut back on suffering by leaving well enough alone and not infringing on other people for personal gain. Having the largest population we can isn't necessarily a desire to destroy the planet, but it is inconsiderate of the fact that we'd be doing so. Like I said before, we preserve people who should not have survived beyond 200-300 years ago with the intelligence they have. Many humans have the speciesist notion that we can survive without nature's help, and are either deluded that we can maintain a much larger population and don't realize the damage overpopulation has already caused and will continue to cause. If we are to survive for a long period of time as humans, I feel we will be most successful as a species, we would have to learn to accept the reality that the world around us requires a balance that we cannot tip in order to save ourselves from extinction. Of all the options that involve us, this is the most in line with what you be more balanced for life and the universe as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment