ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

If humanity had a brain in its head

Updated on April 29, 2012

The various ramifications of being a supposedly intelligent species seem to be largely wasted on Homo Sap. Instead of solving its problems, it creates more. Instead of developing new ideas and putting an end to waste and mental spiritual and physical injury, it ignores new ideas and invents more types of injuries. Instead of ridding itself of its own self-inflicted toxins and poisons, it finds reasons for doing nothing about them. Instead of sharing loads and reducing costs, it inflicts “user pays”.

The mistakes seem endless. Questions aren’t asked, let alone answered. Here’s a couple of questions:

· Does this world look like an efficient, intelligently run place?

· Does it look like anything of value is being done to deal with any issues?

Of course not. How could it? The obvious, however, is usually considered normal. Whether it’s unacceptable, or as in this case, blatantly insane, is rarely even discussed effectively.

Ironically, any theory of a properly run world is usually dismissed as Utopian. It’s too good to be possible. Therefore nobody tries to achieve a properly run world. People actually feel threatened by efficiency.

What’s wrong with doing things properly? What’s wrong with efficiency? What’s wrong with ensuring basic survival mechanisms work?

The Great Unthinking

Here’s a classic example of human observational powers at work. In every generation, a very few will achieve their potentials. As a percentage, it may or may not approach 1% of that generation. Nobody sees anything wrong with the fact that most people never achieve their potentials or even come close. The massive contributions which could be made by an entire generation are lost.

Scientists, engineers and those involved in development of technologies make up a small fraction of the total population. Yet in the last 20 years we’ve seen what this tiny percentage can do to literally change the entire world. What, you may well ask, would happen if the rest of the species could get a word in edgewise? What would the global society and economy be like?

It’s possible. Thanks to communications and access to better training and education, it’s now theoretically possible to have a world full of PhDs. Every single human being on Earth could contribute something new.

It’s not likely, though. Humanity is lugging around the baggage of 5000 years like a dilapidated old teddy bear. If there are no practical objections to success, the next level is moral objection. How dare anyone be happy, prosperous or worse, actually achieving anything? There’s no precedent, therefore it must be wrong, because there’s therefore also no nice smug dogma to go with it.

Then there’s cost. Why spend that super-important cent to make trillions of dollars? That cent could be used for padding someone’s ego or a nominal contribution to something else that doesn’t work. The cent becomes the basis of a crusade to do absolutely nothing, or in many cases much less. Therefore people don’t make trillions of dollars.

The next level is ideology. What ideology supports human achievement? All of them in theory, but obviously none of them in fact. If these ideologies were practical, the world would already be a Utopia. There would be no poverty, no crime, no disease, no hunger and no maladministration. No ideology in history has ever survived these criteria, but they’re all still there, festering away.

Even more grotesque, and getting more so by the second, is the theory of “elites”, those whose intellectual superiority is similar to those very special people routinely sold used cars without brakes or steering. The image of elites is based on nothing but inferiority complexes in most cases. That doesn’t stop elites being taken seriously and obstructive of the rest of the species.

Wonderful picture, isn’t it? The Great Unthinking is the comatose state of humanity’s pitiful knowledge of itself. There are no forward moving dynamics, just dribbling clichés and sophistries which if ever challenged couldn’t endure a ten word conversation without falling to bits as ridiculous nonsense.

One idea for discussion

OK, here’s an idea which might illustrate Homo Sap’s ability to deal with a few issues-

What if humans started using specially adapted chloroplasts in their tissues?

Chloroplasts are the things plants use to obtain energy, generate sugars, etc. They’re passive mechanisms. They just sit there and soak up sunlight. The chloroplasts for humans are keyed to the metabolism and provide energy which the body uses as it needs. You go out in the morning, absorb a healthy supply of energy, drink some water and you can recharge anytime you like.

In humans, chloroplasts might act as sugar regulators, too. Perhaps diabetes could be wiped out in passing, and the demand for food would be reduced. You might need a little more water, but most people don’t drink enough anyway. The chloroplasts are in effect built-in energy sources, not dependent on food supplies.

So what are the objections? As you might expect-

It’s “playing God”. No it damn well isn’t. This is a built in energy source for people, better than batteries can ever be and more efficient than most existing energy technology. The chloroplasts are like mitochondria (aka “cell batteries”), just with different uses.

It’s unnatural. ….And the wheel, fire, mechanics, the laws of physics, etc. aren’t? These things are derived from natural things, and there's not much more natural than chloroplasts. The only difference is the usage.

It’s likely to be costly. No it isn’t. As a matter of fact, it can’t be. Basic natural chloroplasts are actually an evolved form of blue green algae. They can be cultured in thousands of tons. They’re lying around polluting waterways. The adapted chloroplasts could be produced at a fraction of a cent per kilo and that’s far more than you’d need to supply one human. They’re simply grown and harvested.

As you can see, the "arguments" are more rhetorical than factual.

Now the real objection-

What do we do with them when we install them? Obviously, you watch sports and try as hard as possible to get a liver disease while “looking busy” in your ultra-inefficient global slum.

This is the same question humanity has been too lazy to answer since the beginning of recorded history.

Imagine a species that can’t even find a use for itself or a reason for its own existence. There are actual philosophies based on the pointlessness of life. Hardly good enough, is it? You couldn’t call that the result of productive reasoning. Laziness on a colossal scale, yes, and shameless evasion of practically every possible higher issue for a sentient being, but it’s not useful thinking.

If humanity had a brain in its head, it’d start using it and stop finding progressively more absurd reasons for not using it.

It could happen. I’ll believe it when it does.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Dave Mathews profile image

      Dave Mathews 5 years ago from NORTH YORK,ONTARIO,CANADA

      Some of us become religious in order to give our minds a rest and let God do all the thinking and decision making for us.