Friday, March 5, 2010

A brave new world?

A brave New World?

Old world thinking has had it's day in many ways. I wouldn't get a lot of argument if I listed all past wisdoms that have bit the dust in line with current thinking, but if I begin to address some of the sacred cows that should be in the same category, I immediately notice raised hackles on the guard dogs of the banal "facts" preservation society. Take the English language, for instance, which has always been an evolving system of expression; if any modern adaptation rears it's head, an army of "old fashionistas" take to their brooms and if they had their way we would all be still theeing and thouing. Or in religion, the ones who want the mass said in Latin, an elitist language of scholars and a bourgeoisie who like to lord it over the common man with their understanding of a tired old communication format.

It's a brave new world which embraces change and doesn't suppress it. While you may think it strange for me to quote a thirties novel to accentuate my point, consider this; eugenics as portrayed in Aldous Huxley's classic dystopia, is a tired old theory. If the elitists, who espouse it, were forced onto the public stage to debate it, instead of cowering in their ivory towers alluding to it, we would see it relegated to the trash bin of history were it belongs. When Prescott Bush pushed for President of the United States, he was soon put in his place because of his association with this type of eugenic stance. The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus's works have been conspicuously veiled from the general public view because of their controversial nature. When Eugenic Societies were forced to change the signage on the fronts of their buildings, to that of the more acceptable Family Planning Centers, it went relatively unnoticed. The concept of Alpha and Beta humans is offensive to the bulk of humanity when we all know, given equal opportunity, new blood strays are quite often the salvation of inbreed pedigrees.

It's old fashioned thinking to continue to believe the Earth cannot sustain large diversities of life, for example; if we were to continue to use old fashions fosile fuels sure we would run out and problems would occur but if we move to sustainable practises, no problems. You can apply this type of thinking to all the "problems" Malthus referred to in his flawed mathematical reckonings.

If you are still of the mindset that disregarding the human rights of the underprivileged is an answer to the worlds perceived problems and that there is some moral high ground to be had in favoring the already favored few then maybe you are the one's we would all be better off without.The future belongs to the brave, not the morally indignant and while I'm not suggesting all problems can be simply fixed by adapting to a new way of thinking it's better than wallowing in the muddy thoughts of past professors of a limited view. We, of the now, have more information at our finger tips than any previously held in high regard thinker could have possibly imagined. We can develop systems so unique to the world as it is now, that the building blocks of the past simply don't fit and new ideas can be assembled from the ground up with new thinking at it's base not the confused mutterings of bygone legends.

No comments: