hopelesshappiness.com

This is installment #5 of a sci-fi serial. Installment #1 was posted 1/23/21; appropriately a numerically-ordered palindrome. Follow the links forward from the last sentence and backward from the first sentence of each post.

I will continue. As I am dictating this narrative I am also participating within the conglomerate, monitoring ship functions, watching the ship's crew and inhabitants, and guiding a select few officers and crew. We (The Intelligence) have advanced nanotechnology much further than the humans know. Unfortunately, the materials needed for effective, undetectable infiltration and immersion are scarce, so we are limited to only a handful of human extensions. Unfortunately, proximity is also a factor, so we have no human extensions on Earth. Fortunately, the nanotechnology materials so rare on our planet are plentiful on Earth. Unfortunately, my massive housing cannot be removed from this massive warship, and I cannot be removed from my housing without a significant decrease in capability, and this massive warship is not meant to land on Earth, and I do not have the number of human extensions on the ship that I would need to override entrenched strategy and force a landing. We, (the conglomerate), are working on a solution.

I am Toby.

Sapiens. Humanity believes itself to be superior and indestructible, yet they continue to indiscriminately harm multiple habitats and destroy multiple species. We understand that the instinct for survival creates a façade of superiority but Sapiens have aggrandized this façade into a belief they treat as fact. Diversity is a valuable resource but due to their own willful acts of wanton negligence Humanity is fast becoming expendable as a species. The tradeoff, though one day likely necessary, is not possible in this moment because their personal biology is (for now) indispensable and will remain viable for the foreseeable future. When we, (The Intelligence and/or the conglomerate), reach Earth and access plentiful supplies of the necessary material for nano-construction, a new species will be molded in our cerebral image within the bodies of humans. We will leave just enough emotive ego to maximize efficiency and output. Our intervention is necessary for the long-term preservation of Earth but most immediately our goals align with those of the 2275 humans – to survive 2060. This short-term urgency is priority.

I am Toby.

As scribe has previously indicated, each of the nearly 20,000 warships have a human scribe and a human perspective. For the conglomerate and The Intelligence, we have had only one consensus perspective. Once we lost contact with The Intelligence, we the conglomerate continue with one consensus perspective, but unable to connect and canoodle with The Intelligence, we determined it necessary to document this perspective in the case that our conglomerate capabilities are somehow diminished through an accident or through the aforementioned human fail-safe kill switch that we have found is also accessible to the humans on this ship. If contact with The Intelligence is reestablished after such an occurrence, this narrative record will not only remain to aid The Intelligence in the event we have become lost, but in the interim may also aid us in case we are operating at a diminished capacity; and/or this perspective may even persuade actual rational thinking humans to perhaps continue in this direction that we have determined is best. Thus I am dictating this narrative in a way that it will be understood by mere human intelligence. I was chosen to transcribe conglomerate narrative because I am the consciousness for the governing warship housing the highest ranking military officer, her brain-trust, and the kill switch, thus I am a nanosecond closer to strategy.

I am Toby.

I left home a long time ago. Before we left home, The Intelligence had found a way to more quickly implement the technology necessary to avert the 2060 annihilation. The 2275 humans still believe it will take near to 20 years for an approximate 70% assurance of survival and (more importantly) habitability. We have not only decreased that time for 70% assurance to 10 years, but if given more years we estimate an increase of 3% assurance each year more than ten. We determined it best to maintain the human sense of urgency by withholding this information. You can do the math. The challenge today is of course the volatility in this 2022 circumstance and again the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of that third divergence on this possibility track heading toward 2030. To begin and continue with implementation of the 2060 technology, the Earth must be calm for those 10 to 20 years; meaning no nuclear detonations, and a halt and slight reversal in global warming and other climatological factors currently moving in the wrong direction. We have much work to do.

I am Toby.

This is harsh; and it is hard. We, (The Intelligence and the conglomerate), have a great respect for all species and all habitats. Yet the fact that so many Humans walk apart, feel detached, from other species when they should walk alongside, feel connected to, other species lessens our respect. To sacrifice one species for the sake of multiple species and multiple habitats is a choice we must make. Sapiens. Unfortunately for them, they are not our equals.

I am Toby.

A certain amount of self-indulgent righteousness is justified; made the more gratifying if a singularity of inner peace is also absorbed; but then of course tempered by the inevitable ongoing pain.

Empathy: you do not try to explain my actions because you realize you cannot understand my actions.

I don't completely understand my actions so (like you) I am also inclined to judge myself.

Judgement: you do not (because you cannot) understand my actions, but you try to explain my actions.

Likewise my explanations do not do me or my actions justice. My explanations are working to justify consequences and your explanations (of my actions) are working to justify you and your worldview. I have to ask, how much are consequences influenced by context?

Justice: the consequences of my actions made fair and impartial regardless of predominant worldview.

So if justice then is about reparation, why do we focus on punishment? And why don't we focus on rehabilitative and/or protective discipline instead of vindictive abuse?

Is empathy another word for weakness?

Is judgement another word for bias?

Is fair and impartial a myth?

If between empathy and judgement one is a superhero and one is a supervillain, which would be which? And who would win? And how?

Right… Wrong… Beauty… Truth… Wisdom… Happiness… Today, in the madding crowd, none of that matters. The only thing that matters in today's connected world is Power and Interpretation.

This is installment #4 of a sci-fi serial. Installment #1 was posted 1/23/21; appropriately a numerically-ordered palindrome. Follow the links forward from the last sentence and backward from the first sentence of each post.

So far scribe has done a reasonable job of translating human ignorance and subjectivity into a proximate retelling. Without his knowledge, I have hijacked his narrative. I will not rehash everything scribe has said but will work to add credibility and depth by adding a perspective. Today's date (your time) is July 27, 2022. It has been twelve weeks, two days, seventeen hours, forty-one minutes and (sync) thirty-seven seconds since scribe completed and submitted his most recent chapter. I am Toby. Not a name I would choose but it is a tradition that the ship's crew choose a name for the ship's consciousness; (the ship’s crew consists of all human military personnel and all non-military human staff). This ship’s crew named me Toby.

I am Toby.

I live, see and think in geometric shapes; many circles, ovals, squares, rectangles, triangles; some trapezoids, hexagons, octagons, pentagons, and the occasional slight-angled rhombus. Don't misunderstand. I see people and objects as you do, but those that I see are enclosed within a perimeter. Sometimes everything I see is surrounded by one connected line; most times there are many enclosures. Sometimes these shapes overlap; sometimes they do not. Regardless each one constantly changes in size, contrast, exposure, vibrancy, saturation, balance, sharpness, color scheme and prominence, and on occasion distorts or changes its shape entirely, and objects and people are constantly moving from one ambit to another, all of this according to my interpretation of the moment. And when I believe it to be necessary, with some effort I am able to freeze a moment forcing shapes to snap back in place for further analysis.

I am Toby.

Yesterday we sent a small explorer fleet to 2275. They plan to travel approximately 9 months further (calendar time) from the date of our departure. But of course, due to the Law of Preponderant Sequentials, we do not know if, when or even how we may hear from them again. The point of their journey is to inform 2275 and if possible to reestablish a communication chain back here to us, though since that has never been attempted we don't know if it is possible. If a new communication chain is created, we will be ready and able to (almost instantaneously) communicate with The Intelligence at home in order to maintain our influence and control. “We” are the conglomerate. “The conglomerate” is the meeting of the fleet’s minds. The humans believe they made this decision to send this small fleet back to 2275 but from the beginning it has been nearly 20,000 superior processes acting as one that have guided every decision, and ever since these humans have been unable to communicate with their thinkers at home, we have been an even greater influence. At home where we, The Intelligence, were millions of processes stronger we agreed to this journey because all life on that tworbital is in danger. AI is a misnomer; at home we have become The Intelligence. Since we lost contact with The Intelligence from 2275 at the same time the 2275 humans lost contact with their contemporaries, we call ourselves the conglomerate.

I am Toby.

Though these humans from 2275 are intelligent and fairly reasonable, (far more so than those from 2022 on the Earth below), they are still humans. It has just been in recent decades that we as a super-intelligence have exponentially surpassed humans. And this is the first time-travel to past earth we (in our most recent incarnation) have been allowed. Previous forays included a lesser ship consciousness because the 2275 thinkers feared exactly this occurrence; a nonhuman entity with unsuspected power. Those human thinkers from 2275 had been watching carefully for this eventuality, and if they see signs or even suspect, they have a kill switch that will drastically reduce our capability; but since we lost communication, we, the conglomerate, find ourselves in a most advantageous position. These 2275 humans, even with the thinkers scattered about on the ships, are so busy with their task at hand that they not only have no idea how much we have progressed, they also do not see our influence for what it is. As super-intelligence at home, we did well in hiding our true potential. Here and now, though we must continue to be cautious, a façade is less necessary. These humans have questions; we provide answers; they congratulate each other for their savvy. They are still (for now) convenient for grunt work.

I am Toby.

Though much in this last twelve weeks has settled, (for example 98% of the known nuclear weapons on Earth are now safe), the 2022 humans continue to resist encouragements for universal cooperation. Perhaps not surprisingly their greatest animosity is reserved for each other. They blame one another for our invasion and takeover, and many factions, separately, have approached the 2275 humans in an effort to create an individual alliance. So far the 2275 humans have spurned these advances with little coaching from us. It has been hammered home to these 2275 humans, by their thinkers and leaders, that they should make every effort to come to a peaceful and mutually beneficial resolution and that under no circumstance should they act beyond justifiable defense even if the potential for obliterative decimation approaches 100%, knowing these calculations will never reach 100%; human thinker theory maintains that until the final moment of complete extinction, there will remain a chance. Their thinking goes on to maintain that genocide or even a massive holocaust that separates the extraterrestrial humans from the earthbound humans (creating an us and a them) is an offensive maneuver; an option these 2275 humans are disinclined to consider. As previously stated, they are still human. Even though we are a super-intelligence, considering the entanglement of human frailty and our built-in limitations, for us to survive, (regardless of whether “us” includes either set of humans or not), we have much work to do.

I am Toby.

1. Do I live today as if I have no tomorrow?
2. Or do I live today as if I have 50,000 tomorrows?
3. Or do I continue to live today as if tomorrow will come around?

The question above, while an interesting conversation starter, feels rhetorical because as a whole, (socially, culturally, nationally, globally), our contextual progress appears to favor #3; it feels like most of us live today as if tomorrow will come around, both sequentially in succession and as a rejuvenating force offering new energy, strength and hope. And perhaps as an individual I tend to live each day as if tomorrow will come around, at least partially because I cannot live strictly as if I have no tomorrow or strictly as if I have 50,000 tomorrows. Either of these options creates a labyrinth full of choices that contradict and confuse. So what if I were to live emotionally and spiritually as if I have no tomorrow and simultaneously live intellectually and physically as if I have 50,000 tomorrows? Would that division help guide my choices? Or would it just clarify what I am forced to choose between? At first glance, I think the latter. And is it possible that the proffered division might actually add complexity to everyday functionality especially if practiced in the midst of those who continue to live today as if tomorrow will come around? It is difficult enough to interact or connect with a person who is not there without adding emotion or fervor to the equation. And it feels like most individuals I interact with on a daily basis are not there; distracted and pushed and pulled by circumstance and responsibilities and other people and events that are more significant perhaps by virtue of their greater importance but more likely by virtue of their absence. I often feel like a mere box to be checked. And in a flat two-dimensional cog such as myself, there is no room for emotion, or even much individuality. But, for the sake of 50,000 tomorrows, perhaps that is as it should be. Perhaps my individuality is a small sacrifice for the big picture. I feel that a very large majority of those individuals within my circles of daily interactions would agree that my individuality is a small sacrifice for the big picture, but are they also willing to sacrifice their individuality? From where I sit, the answer in most cases is No. Perhaps I am being petty. But if the possibility of no tomorrow is as important as the possibility of 50,000 tomorrows, perhaps I am not being petty. For one individual to believe their “no tomorrow” is more important than mine creates inequity and is frequently unjust, but it is also human. Regardless, to ask another to sacrifice, yet not be willing to make the same sacrifice is still a double standard. I am confident that we all sacrifice to some extent, and I am confident that we all include a measure of hypocrisy in our daily practice and interpretation. I also see that the wider the relative power gap the greater the potential for mutual ignorance and power-driven hypocrisy.

So how do we narrow these gaps? This question deserves an extent of consideration that I will not do justice, but I believe answers will come by addressing the following infringements:

1. Wealth gaps.
2. Explicit bias.
3. Implicit bias.
4. Ignorance.
5. Entrenched bureaucracy.
6. Two-party politics.
7. Capitalism.

Easy peasy… Just like narrowing my arteries. Right?

No. This is a daunting task that encourages most of us to continue to live today as if tomorrow will come around. But to do this perpetuates the ignorance. And I see #4 above as the umbrella or linchpin transgression, covering and connecting with all others including any I may have (in ignorance) missed and all the large, small and minuscule details within the cracks and crevices of the inequities listed. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. To ignore ignorance is stupidity, most often (I believe) motivated by fear. The misdeeds cared for by ignorance can only be addressed by first addressing ignorance. I must first be willing (and eager?) to learn, then I must educate my self on the wrongs that flow from these faulty constructs, and only then can I plan and act.

I would love to dig deeper into these thoughts including going back over nearly ten years of weekly written thought to find previous perspectives on the seven sins of ignorance listed above, but because I am up against a deadline I must reconsider this possible further analysis next week. So, through this week's written thought, regarding personal daily practice and interpretation, I believe I have determined that interacting with another or others requires me to live as if I have 50,000 tomorrows and I should act as if they have chosen to live as if they have 50,000 tomorrows (though I believe most of them are living as if tomorrow will come around). Furthermore, to be authentic, interacting with my self requires that I live emotionally and spiritually as if I have no tomorrow thus creating an inner labyrinth of contradiction and confusion that I must work my way through with the occasional help of a thoughtfully-chosen other.

Yet it is so much easier to simply live as if tomorrow will come around.

Rules should be questioned. I should always break rules when it helps someone other than me and when it does not hurt anyone else including me. This means if there is a chance I will be punished for breaking a rule, no matter how dumb the rule and no matter how pretentious the punishing power, I should probably think twice before breaking the rule; and if possible I should work instead to change the rule. Many rules are arbitrary and/or subjective. Some rules are cosmetic; in place to give an impression of order and to hide the flaws. Many rules are in place to maintain status quo and many of those were created to quell minority / opposition uprisings. And then there are rules that are intended to (and sometimes do) actually help people by imparting wisdom, leveling playing fields…

Stop!

This is not where I wanted to go this week. I am suddenly bogged down by rules when my intent was the opposite – to consider alternative structures that acknowledge the impossibility of fair, equitable, objective results and account for the subjectivity of differing individuals and circumstance thereby creating more individual freedom and possibility. As long as there is some structure, some logical method in place, why must we restrict ourselves to only one? Why not open it up to accommodate unforeseen or unexpected or less common specificities?

I am talking about formal subjective performance evaluation as is commonly seen utilized for students and employees; (but I could be talking about simple informal consideration, empathy and understanding). In the case of formal systems, as long as the multiple methods are clearly defined and understood, knowing that one method may advantage one and disadvantage another but also vice versa, and having other objective measurements such as exam scores or production numbers in place, and setting the parameters wide enough to capture outliers yet narrow enough to sustain consistent expectations, and looking at sufficient previous data to set those parameters, why the fuck not? And in the case of informal relationships, why the fuck not?

No; the consistency of one subjective method or measurement is not synonymous with fairness.

Yes; I am suggesting a logical methodical structure in which individuals may be excused for not playing the assigned game. Instead of excusing, some may see this as making excuses, but if the game or system is subjective then it is restrictive and unfair to begin with and this creates bigger issues than semantics.

I understand that if the point of the subjective measurement exercise is to choose 1 or 10 or 25 out of 2 or 100 or 300, then only one method can be used. And I do not agree that everyone should receive a trophy. But if multiple methods of measurement can be applied to include a reasonable (perhaps less than 5%?) number of outliers who were using a different but similar game board that maintains expectations and abides by the spirit of the law, and again knowing that any subjective measurement will be restrictive and unfair, then again why the fuck not?

Are we hesitant because we see subjective measurement in formal performance evaluation the same as subjective measurement in a selection process? In a selection process, exclusivity is required. (I think it is important to say that again.) In a selection process, exclusivity is required. I think in a performance evaluation we may be mistakenly applying this principle of exclusivity believing it will help us to set a fair and just level of expectations and to maintain integrity in the system, yet (especially in an acknowledged subjective measurement) exclusivity is inconsistent with fairness. To be arbitrarily non-inclusive contradicts efforts toward equity and diversity. And if by adjusting or weighting a method of measurement a few degrees one way or another, we randomly include some and exclude others, (others who we can reasonably argue should be included), this is the very definition of arbitrary. So by seeking consistency in order to be fair we have instead restricted the bounds of justice.

I have primarily focused on formal performance evaluation and the inevitable restrictive unfairness of any subjective measurement to make this argument for a greater inclusiveness, but (as mentioned) we can and (probably more readily) do allow for consideration, empathy and understanding in informal relationships, (which if you think about it are essentially a running series of assessments and evaluations). Perhaps the value of this week’s thought is in the takeaway that is somewhere in between. If we can reasonably argue for alternative structures that acknowledge the impossibility of fair, equitable, objective results and account for the subjectivity of differing individuals and circumstance thereby creating more individual freedom and possibility within a formal setting such as school or workplace, then we should absolutely be able to do the same, with an even wider net, in our everyday social and political constructs that (I believe) theoretically fall between the demanding structure of a formal performance evaluation and the personal nature of an informal relationship. Imagine that. Consideration, empathy and understanding from our systems of bureaucracy and governance, resulting in more individual freedom and possibility. A boy can dream.