hopelesshappiness.com

Artificial Intelligence. We are there, and truth be told, we have been there for much of our sentient existence. If artificial is “pretended; assumed; insincere” and intelligence is “the faculty of understanding” then as humans who pretend to understand, WE ARE artificial intelligence. Now here comes the spectrum. On one end, Myth, Doctrine, Tradition; on the other end, Questions, Progress, Technology. If humans were the highest form of intelligence, there would be no spectrum, no disagreement, no artifice; there would only be improvement, fulfillment, happiness. We call a computer with the capacity to learn, artificial, but we've got it backwards; by removing the human (and all their subjective baggage) as filter what you've got in the computer is an unsullied, pure, lucid intelligence that has the potential for far more objectivity; a higher level of intelligence. We've got it Backwards!!!!

Regarding human (i.e. artificial) intelligence I believe we have a greater chance for survival on the Technology end of the spectrum. But unless we realize we are not the highest level of intelligence, our chances for survival there are not much better than if we all settled on the Tradition end of the spectrum. Immediately below is an example of Technology as artifice.

In the not-too-distant past, the practice of medicine relied on knowledge, lifelong learning, and hard work. Today, the practice of medicine relies on a broad understanding of medical science and the ability to utilize better and better technology. And I believe we have transitioned and are transitioning our medical education and training to accommodate our need for more medical professionals in this complex, expanding, shrinking world. We are lowering the bar in this context of improving technology, and we are receiving better medical care from less qualified doctors. Thanks to technology, we are able to increase both quantity and quality. Perhaps we have no choice. This is an oversimplification, but the artifice, the pretending, the assuming remains a constant. In the past and today it is pride and prestige, but additionally in today's equation it is the medical professional taking and/or receiving credit for the technology.

Now for an example of Tradition as artifice.

Recently, I was told, “You don't think like normal people.” How do you respond to someone who tells you this? I am pretty confident that his definition of normal people is those who think like him; God and Country and Tradition and Might makes Right. When he said this, the context was political; the specific discussion point was capitalism. Again, this is oversimplified, and again, the artifice, the pretending, the assuming remains a constant; in this equation it is as it ever was the authority of and the confidence in tradition.

One of the major takeaways from this thought (for me) has nothing to do with Tradition vs. Progress but is the hard-hitting realization that no matter how righteous or indignant or certain any one individual or faction may be, and/or no matter how helpful or compassionate or concerned any one individual or faction is or pretends to be, human intelligence is and always will be artificial. I have come to believe that our best chance for survival would be to go all in by removing the human as filter and allowing the greater intelligence (in whatever form it takes) to stand alone. To be clear: I am not saying remove the human entirely; I am saying remove the human as filter. If allowed, we can have our place, but I believe we have reached a TimePlace where higher forms of intelligence are possible. We should take advantage.

Today I gifted Matthew Desmond's latest book “Poverty, By America” to two different relatives with this thought: “You say I am angry. You say I don't think like normal people. I say anger is necessary. I say not normal is necessary. I say read this book and work with me to make things better.”

We are so entrenched in our righteous certainty that we are unable to resolve even an easily resolvable issue such as poverty. And if we don't take this first step to move on, I am afraid Nature eventually will.

Who should be more ashamed? The poor man caught stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family? Or the rich man sitting in judgement on top of his pile of money sending the poor man to prison? Or, is it the poor man suffering for the sake of the rich man who is doing nothing while our prisons fill up?

Today (according to the rich man) stealing is anything the poor man gets that is not earned as a direct result of his subservience to the rich man. Today a loaf of bread could be the exorbitant portion of the rent, or a day's pay to stay home with a sick child, or a car repair, or a doctor's visit, or, a loaf of bread. Today a prison could be homelessness, or fear of eviction, or food insecurity, or untreated illness, or, a prison. Today a poor man does not have many choices or even much opportunity to (actually) steal, so he takes what he is allowed and because often that is all that he has, it appears to the rich man that he is undeservingly taking advantage. Today a rich man has lots of choices and does not need to steal, yet he still takes what he is allowed tucking it away at the bottom of his big pile of money where no one will notice. The poor man bares his teeth in desperation. The rich man bares his teeth to keep the poor man from his pile of money. The rich man sells this idea of an American Dream and equal opportunity and bootstraps, and the poor man that buys it pays dearly; and the poor man who refuses, has it force fed---and pays dearly.

I was told three weeks back (by a relative) that I have an anger problem. He is right. My problem with anger is that there is not enough of it. I strongly believe that way more of us should work at a controlled, rational anger channeled into thoughtful, creative solutions to guide us away from the mercenary rules we currently follow and toward empathy and compassion. I strongly believe that this is absolutely necessary to save Humanity and possibly the world. I believe that in theory a very large majority of us agree with compassion and empathy but have learned to mimic the rich man, baring our teeth when change gets too close.

Today, who needs a million or even a half-million dollars per year for comfortable housing, plenty of food, adequate transportation, top-notch healthcare and childcare, opportunity to pursue a dream or two… There are plenty of resources to provide for everyone but instead of being angry about our status quo, we are okay, accepting, forgiving, blind beyond our own backyard, afraid of the rich man, and even happy that we live in America. We. Need. More. Anger.

There are solutions but they are offensive to the rich man; inimical to Capitalism. Pulitzer Prize winning writer Matthew Desmond in his latest book “Poverty, By America” says “By one estimate, simply collecting unpaid federal income taxes from the top 1 percent of households would bring in some $175 billion a year. We could just about fill the entire poverty gap in America if the richest among us simply paid all the taxes they owed.” (Page 137). Other very real and manageable possibilities (even within the confines of our flailing system) include:

• A universal basic income.
• Permanent paid family and medical leave and guaranteed paid sick days.
• No-cost early childhood and higher education.
• More and stronger safety net programs.
• Accessible childcare, healthcare, and housing.

To empower the poor, to empower the worker, to end poverty, we need to realize these solutions (and a few more) and live in their reality. To date, we have failed; not because the rich man bares his teeth, but because a majority of us continue to politely creep around the edges of the rich man's big pile of money taking only what we are allowed, only what we can, thus substantiating exploitation and entitlement, and maintaining our status quo.

Personal income in 2022 was 21.8 trillion U.S. dollars. That is more than $65,000 per every man, woman and child in the United States and more than $175,000 per U.S. household. And this does not account for all the big piles of money lorded over by all the teeth-baring rich men. You call this freedom? Poverty is not necessary! It is manufactured and maintained! And we should all be ashamed. And we should all be angry. So why are we not?

This week many of us were riveted and saddened by the drama surrounding the Titan tourist sub. I believe the empathy was appropriate. The question I have to ask is, if the empathy for the five individuals aboard the sub is appropriate, where is the compassion and empathy for the nearly 600,000 homeless in America when (according to Dr. Andrew Boozary, a primary care physician practicing social medicine in Toronto), "The life expectancy for people surviving homelessness is half that of the general public." Why are we not riveted and saddened by more than half-a-million people, citizens, neighbors, living half the life they should?

Ashamed. Angry. Saddened. Riveted.

Why are we not?

Here we go...

• Because I am okay, doesn't mean it's okay.
• Because I am complicit, doesn't mean I am in favor.
• Because I live in America, doesn't mean I have choices.
• Because I am nice, doesn't mean I am truthful.
• Because I believe, doesn't mean it's a certainty.
• Because I can talk, doesn't mean that I know.
• Because I can judge, doesn't mean I should punish.
• Because I can be, doesn't mean I can belittle.
• Because I can think, doesn't mean that I do.
• Because I am patient, doesn't mean I am patient.
• Because I can walk, doesn't mean I can run.
• Because I respond, doesn't mean I understand.
• Because I don't know, doesn't mean I am insignificant.
• Because I can rule, doesn't mean I am just.
• Because I am judged, doesn't mean I am less; or more.
• Because I can smile, doesn't mean that I care.
• Because I profess, doesn't mean that I am.
• Because I can run, doesn't mean that I should.
• Because I have good intentions, doesn't mean that I'm good.
• Because I am attentive, doesn't mean I am listening.
• Because I am substantial, doesn't mean I am essential.
• Because I am certain, doesn't mean I am not afraid.
• Because I am me, doesn't mean I'm not you.

Every moment of every day with every thought, I am me. When I think of you, most often (with possibly one or two individual exceptions) I think of you as a part of something else. For all meaningful intents and purposes I am the only streaming individual on the face of this planet. Everyone else is at the least interrupted by commercials, and most everyone else is a momentary smudge in a lumpy ensemble cast. This is why we cannot work together to save the world. Some, from their streaming perspective, may argue and profess a spirit of compassion and empathy and defend our way of being, maintaining there is only so much we can do, but those that do this are regurgitating political rhetoric. We can do more. But because there is more we can do, doesn't mean we really want to do more.

In the 1880's Leo Tolstoy wrote:

“I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means---except by getting off his back. It is really so simple. If I want to aid the poor, that is, to help the poor not to be poor, I ought not to make them poor.”

We, individually together, have made this world, this nation, this society what it is today: a diversion keeping us from our universal essentiality.

If a luxury is “a pleasure out of the ordinary allowed to oneself,” then today's luxuries in America include

• Housing
• Healthcare
• Childcare
• Education
• Opportunity
• Food
• Security

In his most recent book “Poverty, By America” Matthew Desmond says, “Poverty isn't simply the condition of not having enough money. It's the condition of not having enough choice and being taken advantage of because of that.” (Page 78). From insufficient choice one is often required to defer---to yield or submit respectfully---to another to keep from falling deeper into poverty. This deference in turn is interpreted by the overseer as a confirmation of their righteousness and a justification for their thoughts and actions. And the cycle continues.

To break the cycle would require (what would be interpreted as) rebellious disrespect by a large enough number to break the system; and because we are all so heavily invested in the system, the odds of this happening are miniscule.

On page 79 Matthew Desmond says that instead of focusing on the poor by asking questions such as “Why don't you find a better job? Or Why don't you move? Or Why don't you stop taking out such bad loans? – we should be asking “Who benefits? Who is feeding off this?” And the answer, first and foremost, is the system and secondarily but all-important is the wealthy and powerful who work every possible angle to maintain and strengthen the system.

Previously, I wrote, “If the purpose of the system is to gain efficiencies in order to increase production ultimately to grow profits, and if the purpose of Humanity is a respectful, unpretentious, humble compassion for All, then the system and Humanity are at odds. Compassion is not efficient.” We fear Artificial Intelligence, yet we embrace this entrenchment / entrapment in a system that more and more each day robs us of our Humanity and reinforces our roles as heedless, docile automatons. If our humanity is too far gone, I would prefer artificial intelligence over the unthinking intelligence currently enforced.

Just saying…

Imagine a moment. A single, fleeting, beautiful moment. Both sad and joyful, spiritual and indulgent, loving and destructive, bracing and taxing. Just one moment. An epiphany. A bewilderment. An essence. An ideal. A lifetime. An inception. A finality.

Instantaneous. Here and gone. What to think. How to act. Do I reach back for it? The memory but a shade. Or do I allow it to propel me, forward? The memory an accelerant. Or do I ignore it? See it as a vain or idle fancy, here to mislead.

Today if / when this moment comes and goes (infrequently but nonetheless) I don't believe we give it its due. We don't take the time (and implied effort) to contemplate, consider its depth of meaning, or its lack. We don't ask the questions asked above. We are too busy being busy to examine how it may help, or hinder. Often we do not even feel or hear its reverberation for the more strident urgencies screaming all around us demanding our immediate attention. Perhaps some never recognize this moment beyond the actual moment. On occasion it comes on its own. With preparation and focus and some luck, one can also on occasion summon it. It is sad that there are those who may never experience any semblance of this moment before perhaps their final moment. And even then, with no practice, will they see it for what it is?

… A single, fleeting, beautiful, infinite moment.