c4tp's friend's Journal: February 5th

2-5-03 925am
I wish I wasn't tired today. That's what I wish for. Scoff, a petty little wish indeed, but I can wish for anything I want. I really don't have a clue what to talk about today that would be acceptable for this writing. Yes you are probably thinking I am some sort of odd individual now, I'd be inclined to disagree. I just have very little important ideas to put down on paper today.
I did finally get my job and I start today. Excited, I should be, but the money is what I am in it for. Money money money, that's all anyone wants or really cares about. But then again this is America, The Land of Capitalism. I mean why can't we have a society that doesn't rely on money? It's a simple question, but one incredibly hard to answer. Is this unfortunate or just how it is all meant to be?
This question is similar to that of Micheal Moore's about guns in America. He made a documentary called "Bowling for Columbine" that analyzed America's fascination with owning guns and tried to find out why America's death rate with guns was so much higher than any other country. In America the deaths that involved guns numbered over eleven thousand while the total of most of the other First-World countries would have been drastically less. Mind you this is the total.
I'm not saying our capitalistic society is a bad thing, I believe quite the opposite. Without this money fueling numerous research projects our society would not be as advanced as it is today. Which leads me to another point, or question, is our society really that advanced at all?
To me this poses a whole new set of questions which in some ways are related to the previous question about capitalism. Also, it could dip into science fiction a slight bit as some people believe in aliens. And if aliens do exist they are obviously far more advanced than our civilization. Our society can barely send our 'astronauts' to a few thousand miles above our atmosphere, yet these 'alien astronauts' are probably traveling thousands of light years to study our incredibly less advanced society. But then why do they want to study a less advanced society? Because if they (as in their society) have already been past the stage we are currently in, there would be nothing that we could teach them. So why would they travel an enormous distance to study us?
Well this a good point, but maybe they have found wormholes in space, or maybe there is parallel universes that we do not see as humans. Stephen Hawking's book The Universe In a Nutshell addresses these topics quite handily and anyone semi-interested in physics may find this book very interesting.
But, back to my point, if aliens exist I doubt they would travel long distances just to see us humans. This begs my point of parallel universes and wormholes. Maybe they are trying to send us a signal or possibly even trying to corrupt our society so they can take control. I doubt the latter is true, or maybe they are just studying us to provide parallels to their past civilizations. This is exactly what modern day historians do today. The US is often compared to the Roman Empire, minus the grotesque displays of human killing. But there are many similarities from our society to that of the Romans, and as Bush is planning to attack Iraq.
If Bush goes about this attack we look more and more like the Romans in all our actions. And as we know the Romans were a technologically advanced society much as we are. And we also know that the Romans collapsed. This then entered to world into a time of death, disease and local conquer. By this I mean there were no great expansions by any single country and control was generally of a short area about a fortified castle.
Now to relate this to our time. IF, we are attacked or choose to use nuclear weapons in this next war our government may not be able to survive and the inhabitants of the world would live by the dog-eat-dog idea. There would be widespread famine and disease would be rampant. But, somehow someway the world must, I repeat, must adjust the population to keep it at acceptable levels. This means that if we humans don't increase natural selection, nature itself will. Which would be better? Neither of course, but somehow the world has to go back to a state of equilibrium with the amount of humans it contains.