In Search of SupportCreators.org

As an avid reader, watcher, and creator of content, I am confronted by the reality that creator's are mostly not compensated directly for their work. In our era of value added capitalism, the only way a creator earns anything significant is through the protocol of having middlemen form contracts to publish, promote, and skim the lion's share of the profit off the top.

Sure, there are peer to peer creator networks out there nowadays in the form of GoFundMe and Kickstarter, but those seem to focus on new projects or sad story donation campaigns, rather than small creator support. If you sell something physical Etsy or eBay might fill the gap, and YouTube, TikTok, and the like have sizable kickbacks for mega-influencers.

Still, as a consumer of used books and library materials, there specifically ought to be a way to show appreciation and support for the original writer. Too often I've been told the author isn't making any money if borrow a book from a friend or the library or even buy a book second-hand. In my mind I'd like to be thrifty and environmental while cutting the middlemen out of the transaction.

To that ends I imagine a website which lists all books out there, perhaps one that permits reviews and discussion (kind of like GoodReads) and rather than relying to micro-payments from bookseller advertising, permits small donations (up to a dollar, say) to the original creators. This isn't entirely an original idea, as David Brin has written about an internet in general whose content receives direct peer-to-peer micropayments. This is a nod to that paradigm. 

I personally don't have the know-how, but maybe an existing platform or non-profit web designer could implement and popularize such a presence. Living authors, big and small, could then collect a little extra for encouraging reuse and library lending practices. Dead authors, by way of their estates, could point their collections to worthy causes like writing organizations or other non-profits. Thusly, compensation for the creation of good ideas would flow toward authors instead of into the pockets of well-positioned investors. (fwiw SupportCreators.org is currently available)

Of course, you could contact authors, like myself, directly to make your own micro-contribution. :D

The Idiocy of Idolatry ("Don't Drink the Koolaid, Man!")

The U.S. election falls on the 5th of November this year, my birthday for what it's worth. It is a random coincidence which is true of nearly a million other Americans, nevertheless to ascribe special significance to my position on anything would be fool hardy. Alas, an unimaginable number of people follow a similar feat of weak thinking when they choose a guru (real or imagined) to lead them in life on issues of morality, ethics, or policy.

This fallacy seems to be centered on a "cult-of-personality" phenomenon. In essence, the stories behind a figurehead, in addition to their motivational presence build within a human community to a legendary level, that any common sense goes out the door and the leadership commands of the "guru" gain a sacred quality that mesmerizes large numbers. 

I suspect this is a culturally evolved phenomenon. At one time, small tribes of humans were challenged to survive in circumstances where their accumulated technology and cleverness was modest compared to the modern era. It's easy to imagine the cohesivity of the group being a prominent survival tactic. As such, a charismatic leader that channeled strength and conviction to circle up the tribe was selected for. Ideally, the "guru" would implement a system of thinking and action that optimized survival and thriving that worked, but humans likely came to rely so much on the "guru's" leadership that they became synonymous with the policies and ethics they implemented.

And so, today we too often focus on the audacity or eloquence of the "guru" rather than on the policy or ethic itself. In this way, the many "gurus" of this world have gained unbelievable power with the people. Whether it's Yahweh or Zeus, Kennedy or Trump, Jesus or Mohammed, Jim Jones or Tom Cruise, Taylor Swift or Elon Musk, Marcus Aurelius or Gandhi, Harry Potter or Pokémon or yes, even Mommy or Daddy, we all too often ascribe too much credence to the person rather than evaluate the guidance itself for merit.

One might say adequate tribal leadership has evolved into obsessive idolatry. If a story captures the minds of the populace, the story rules. Stories can be shortcuts to conveying ideas and to a great degree they have become the persuasive behemoths of humanity. At their core, gurus have become infomercial salesmen trying to sell their souped up ideas, good, bad, or a confusing mix of both.

I suggest leaving the "guru" behind and examining the underlying statements and evidence independently. Follow the citations, and develop a system of critical thinking that doesn't rely on a single person, especially one that declares themself as the authority, whether with humility or pompousness. The good path is paved with kindness, reason, and research, not certainty. 

So come November 5th, let it be my birthday wish to my fellow Americans to encourage you to fact check thoroughly what each candidate stands for before casting your vote. The well being of the world is too important to follow a guru blindly...at least until the perfect artificially intelligent overlord guru shows up. (jk)

Capernaum (2018) A Film Contemplation

 

For this film , prepare yourself for an uncomfortable dive into third world living, mostly through the eyes of an undocumented refugee boy named Zain. The film highlights his courage in standing up to live the most honorable life possible given his circumstance. Though fiction, the apocryphal element of the struggle of the poorest children in the direst of circumstances comes through in rusty spades.

My central take away from the film is that far too many children are being born into a world that isn't caring for them. Religions and family tradition trumpet the sacredness of birth when planned parenthood is what is needed. Humanity's opium isn't religion itself, but the religious and societal appropriation of evolutionary instincts to push young people into reproducing without sufficient forethought. Too often birth control and good sex education are absent where needed most.

And in the end, it's good secular education that is needed across the board. People can make better decisions if they aren't deluded with ancient traditions that were crafted for another time, a time when most children died young and when child labor was the norm.

I highly recommend everyone watch this film, if only to open our eyes to the reality beyond our first world comfort. Acting with compassion and reason can only work if we understand the challenges that run deep across the human dominated global society.

It's the Cycle of Life?

I cannot count the times people cite "it's the cycle of life!" when declaring the inevitability of animals (humans usually included) killing other animals (humans usually not included). There is an iota of truth to the statement, alas I find this to be an oversimplification that is used to dismiss the agency of humans as individuals, and as a species in how our actions affect the health of our planet.

Context is everything, and my parenthetical additions to "it's the cycle of life" above highlight the primary nuances, I believe, so let's start there. 

Generally, most ethical stances would exclude humans killing humans as something good. War (when it includes state sanctioned homicide) murder, cannibalism, even self-defense (when non-lethal means are possible) are generally recognized as not applicable to the "cycle of life" forgiveness mantra.

Next, let's consider non-human animals killing humans. Here, most will agree our species gets a pass on being the object of carnivorous animal attacks or the spread of bacteria and viral vectors by other animals (mosquitos carrying disease, rabid animals carrying disease). Humans take for granted that they are not involved in the cycle of life in these cases and taking every precaution and action to prevent human death is our implicit duty. Frankly, no matter what the killer is (animals, plant-based poison, gravity, extreme weather, or even time) we tend to take the stance that if human death or injury can be prevented, humans should take action to do so.

Of course other things are killed than just humans, and this non-human animals killing other non-human animals is what most people intend when using the "it's the cycle of life" comment, but each situation really deserves a closer look if our true intent is to preserve a healthy planet.

Predation obviously does occur, and has occurred for billions of years in the biomes of Earth. For organisms (plant, animal and bacterial) that get their nutrients from anything but raw minerals in the soil, water and air, or organisms that have perished from random forces, taking the life of other organisms is necessary if their own lives and their ability to propagate are to be protected.

Our living planet does seem to incorporate a complex food web for all the many varied organisms to coexist and over large spans of time to coevolve. As such, life does have a cycle that feels miraculous if only because we cannot comprehend the billions of years over which our planet's dynamic system has come about...that is until human intervention has turned into a powerhouse.

Take humans out of the equation and there is by and large a balance in Nature. Predating wolves, lions and coyotes, etc. hunt and kill mice, rabbits and deer. When one of the predating species gets too numerous their prey species take a downfall and subsequently so will the predating species. Generally, this will keep populations in check, which is an important part of "the cycle of life."

Again, humans are the exception. Because they have refined methods for killing others and for healing themselves, over the past several thousand years, the population of humanity has grown exponentially. Our population is projected to grow from its current 8.2 billion and top off around 10 or 11 billion in the next century or so. 

Because of this massive presence on the planet we are doing disproportionate damage to self-repairing, biodiverse, global systems. The massive development of human infrastructure (factory farming of food and companion animals, agricultural sprawl, alteration of atmosphere, alteration of water systems, etc. etc.) has a devastating effect on the long term status of the global environment's health.

Which is to say, human choices to regulate our population size and our per capita impact on natural systems will continue to have a critical impact on the world we live in unless we adjust our civilization's mindset. 

In conclusion, "It's the cycle of life," does not excuse us when our human actions lead to the unnecessary killing of animals. We do not need to kill animals to thrive as a species. If our companion animals are killing wild-animals then the fault is ours as well. Humanity has become a presence which is inherently unnatural, and we should own that status, so that we can be proper caretakers of a beautiful world with longevity for the good of all species.

The next time you say "it's the cycle of life" ask yourself what can you do to make the natural cycle more resilient, and thriving in spite of human hegemony. Ending human hunting and fishing, eliminating unnecessary human initiated animal breeding, restraining our animal companions, going vegan, reducing overall consumption in general, etc. We humans are not controlled by Nature, so we have to make better decisions and actions if we want to keep our shared planet healthy!