The Button; What Would You Do?

 “War. War Never Changes”

A quote from best selling game Fallout 4, based in a post nuclear apocalypse Boston. A game that was supposed to be based in a distant dystopian wasteland, unfortunately, now doesn’t seem so dystopian. But it must be asked, how could we, as humanity, get this close to disaster? Are we not all united through the belief that humans fizzling out in a giant ball of fire is bad? This begs us to ask the question; how have we come so close to something we all agree we want to avoid?

Three words. Military. Industrial. Complex. These words, so famously coined by general Dwight D Eisenhower, encapsulate the bulk of the history of global warmongering. But it makes sense, as the bodies of government that exist  in a perpetual game of risk and reward. 

Let’s say, for any given conflict, there are a million deaths. From these millions of deaths, however, billions others are able to profit from the sale of arms, funding, and other incentives that have been created around this industry. Sure, the odds of the equation are 1000-1 you’ll be on the good side of war, rather than the bad side, so it's worth risking this small chance at death for personal gain. Given this as a button, knowing that the people who suffer are out of sight and out of mind, many would unfortunately press this button. 

As a matter of fact, since the odds are so good, I’m willing to argue a majority of people would press the button again! And again, and again, and again, and again….. the pattern begins to unfold. 

So, why is the mainstream so devoid of anti-war voices? Is it the people? The culture? Rather, it’s the machine itself. The button has been pushed throughout the course of human history, over and over again, the thought of ignoring the button becomes taboo, so against the grain. The shifting of our culture is evident, as now children who are ostracized are those who read the bible, and regularly go to church. The new normal is abnormal. Sadly, this normal includes this button, being continuously pressed by the machine over and over again. 

And of course, I understand; you personally would never click the button. You, reader, are someone who sits patiently on your moral high ground, full of zen and tranquil in all hypothetical situations offered. You would be the exception, the one who claims they will go against the grain and fight for the betterment of all, rather than just personal gain.

Just like everyone else.

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/20/biden-makes-suprise-visit-to-ukraine/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/poland-waits-to-pounce/

Printing; What's there to be pressed about?

 Who reads books anymore anyways? 

I hear the cries of Gen Z echoing through my thoughts, knowing there is little that can be done to tell the history of the printing press without boring a small segment of readers to the brink of exhaustion, but I will still do my best. 

The tangible effects of the Printing Press are well documented; production of written works across all of Europe exploded, exponentially growing in each passing decade. But such a study would be too easy, and too simple. Instead, let's take a deep look at the societal effects of the printing press and how it shaped the humans who have come and gone since its invention. 

All inventions throughout human history have spawned from one commonality; a need. This need is relative, sometimes dire to the survival of humanity in the case of medicine and science, but sometimes less pressing, like an automatic dishwasher or dryer. In all fairness, to call Johannes Gutenberg’s machine an “invention” is a bit misleading and unfair to those before him. The printing press had already existed, but the process was slow and very rudimentary. Written works could be produced, but they could not be produced en masse. This system is one that suited the status quo of the day; only exceedingly large organizations with a mass amount of manpower can truly spread their ideas across large geographic regions. What organization in the 15th century loved this? That would of course, be the Catholic Church. 

Now, here it is important to note that Gutenberg was not some radical revolutionary trying to invent a machine to dissolve the Catholic Church; rather, quite the opposite. Gutenberg was a simple inventor who saw a need and spent years perfecting his model for the Gutenberg Press. And, by 1450, his invention was mastered and ready to produce written works en masse. And it was at this moment the snowball began to roll uncontrollably, into an avalanche. 

Now, ideas can be printed in quantities never before seen in humanity. For the first time, it truly seemed that the ideas of man can spread faster than man itself. No longer were the ideas being spread restricted to the clergy and nobleman, but rather the average artisan with a few extra coins lying around can have his ideas printed and distributed to whomever he deems appropriate. It is no coincidence that the Protestant Reformation shortly followed the invention of the press, as it is not an overstatement that this was the most important invention in the history of mankind. Printing had increased exponentially decade over decade, and with this literacy rates began to skyrocket, relatively speaking. Reading was no longer reserved for the political class, but began to leak its way into the lower rungs of society as well. Many advancements were made in science, math, medicine, the arts, theater, and so much more due to Gutenberg’s work. 

The Printing Press is certainly, at this point, an obsolete piece of technology. Yet, it’s historical influence cannot be overstated, as the basis of all mass media spawned from this very moment. The Gutenberg Press is simply put, the most critical turning point in the history of humankind since the death of Jesus Christ himself.

Spread the Word!

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/press.html

https://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/johann-gutenberg

What is a Marketplace, without any Currency?

 “You can’t handle the truth!” 

This quote, one of my personal favorites, is a double edged sword. On one hand, the majority of my peers will never understand the power and beauty of this quote. On the other hand, I have a gut feeling my target audience does indeed understand the force behind such words. On the surface, it is but another quote from acting legend Jack Nicholson, but looking deeper can help us get to the bottom of an age-old question; what is truth?

In our political discourse today, the idea of truth has evolved from one of objectivity to subjectivity; no longer is there “the” truth. No no, rather this multiple “truths”, all molded by the varying experiences and political perspectives an individual holds. This, from my lens, is the most core fundamental issue facing our current political landscape. So the question remains; how can these falsified ideas of truth be reconvened into a single objective truth once more?

The only way to truly be able to better the state of our information wars is to peel back the smoke and mirrors regarding the dispensing of information. Smoke and mirrors only serve those trying to bend and mold the truth to their own narrative. This is the idea brought forth by John Stuart Mill, one that is built on the infallible nature of truth. Mill theorized that when truth and falsehoods are able to be put against each other in the public space, that truth would always win out. The rampant use of censorship, misinformation, and intellectual warfare has destroyed this battleground, thus the battles can never take place. The scientific method is a lost artform, as ideas are rarely pitted against each other to find truth; rather, ideas are simply thrown at political opponents like frag grenades being aimlessly thrown into no mans land.

America is a nation built on bureaucracy and red tape, and to revive the marketplace of ideas, we must rip away the red tape. When was the last time two elected officials had a formal debate to discuss policy? Why aren’t our officials working to try and find the best solutions for our nation's collective policies? Ideas are no longer put through any form of litmus test, so their integrity is never brought into question. 

So, how do we restore the marketplace of ideas? We rebuild the model of a marketplace, something that can be manipulated and molded by powerful actors, to a coliseum, a battleground where only two ideas can enter, and only one can remain. Granted, this description sounds more Thunderdome than coliseum, but the point remains, that a fair, level, and true debate forum would help the truth return to its place on the ideological throne. After all, these terms should be open, fair, and agreeable to all who wish to try and tell the truth.

And for those fearful of the implications of what a debate stage can bring, those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear; a slogan of war in the age of digital privacy, but a rallying cry for hope, when trying to return the truth to what it was meant to be; truth. 

https://rdi.org/defining-democracy-marketplace-of-ideas/