15 12 12 - 08:24The problem with progress is that it's not nature. Nature is incremental and wise; progress standardizes and centralizes, which "seems" efficient but often is less so, and produces a monoculture based on the technology, not the people who need to use it.
In 2003, if you introduced a single-sign-in service that was run by a company, even if you documented the protocol and encouraged others to clone the service, you'd be described as introducing a tracking system worthy of the PATRIOT act. There was such distrust of consistent authentication services that even Microsoft had to give up on their attempts to create such a sign-in. Though their user experience was not as simple as today's ubiquitous ability to sign in with Facebook or Twitter, the TypeKey service introduced then had much more restrictive terms of service about sharing data. And almost every system which provided identity to users allowed for pseudonyms, respecting the need that people have to not always use their legal names. - "The web we lost," by Anil Dash
As we get better at beating back nature, we forget that nature regulates an order within us, too. We need something to crusade against and something to jihad for. Without it, we become creatures of our own bodily functions, of our comfort and convenience, and forget about any values worth fighting or dying for. Instead, we replace our concerns with an ideology that is both impotent and self-destructive, and by forcing us to pity ourselves through pitying others, it makes us into bodily functions entirely:
Obesity is a bigger health crisis globally than hunger, and the leading cause of disabilities around the world, according to a new report published Thursday in the British medical journal The Lancet.
The report revealed that every country, with the exception of those in sub-Saharan Africa, faces alarming obesity rates -- an increase of 82% globally in the past two decades. Middle Eastern countries are more obese than ever, seeing a 100% increase since 1990. - "Global report: Obesity bigger health crisis than hunger," by Danielle Delorto
But how can that be? We had Utopian intentions. We wanted to protect everyone. The result was a lack of quality control. Instead of creating a situation that allowed those who had something to offer to demonstrate a will to thrive, we forced everyone to survive at a basic level and have created a horde of purposeless, life-resenting, low-quality and angry, self-pitying people. Because of that, we've thrust the good people in with the bad, and by standardizing, made everyone miserable.
When examining the talent at any organization look at the culture, not the rhetoric â look at the results, not the commentary about potential. Despite some of the delusional perspective in the corner office, when we interview their employees, hereâs what they tell us:
- More than 30% believe theyâll be working someplace else inside of 12 months.
- More than 40% donât respect the person they report to.
- More than 50% say they have different values than their employer.
- More than 60% donât feel their career goals are aligned with the plans their employers have for them.
- More than 70% donât feel appreciated or valued by their employer.
So, for all those employers who have everything under control, you better start re-evaluating. There is an old saying that goes; âEmployees donât quit working for companies, they quit working for their bosses.â Regardless of tenure, position, title, etc., employees who voluntarily leave, generally do so out of some type of perceived disconnect with leadership. - "10 reasons your top talent will leave you," by Mike Myatt
For employers, like society at large, the goal is no longer the goal. The goal is now to get everyone to make nice with each other. The problem with this is that you sacrifice the good for keeping the not-so-good inline. Employees like a situation, akin to capitalism or natural selection, where they get rewarded for what they do right. This de-emphasizes penalties on screwing up because it's an opportunity-based system. On the other hand, incompetents like a system that's based on penalties. That way, all they have to do is not make certain errors and they're OK, even if they don't contribute anything positive. A Utopian society is based on an ideal that is universally applied and thus it is penalty based, for those who are too equal or not equal enough, and not opportunity-based, or rewarding those who rise above mediocrity. This happens on every level: socialism/liberalism/anarchism/communism/leftism (same thing, different degrees) in politics, tolerance in socialization, universal love in spirituality, utilitarianism in design, promiscuity in sexuality, etc.
To counter this, I submit Plato's rule: to each as he/she deserves.
Smite the bad, raise up the good, and do nothing for the mediocre.
Only this is the path to healthy in results; liberal ideology will temporarily make you feel better because it implies that our failings are not our fault, but the result of a vast conspiracy. But the results of liberalism are, like the results of progress and Utopian thought, to reward the bad along with the good and thus to decrease the good in the world.
Here's that viewpoint from another angle:
With our knowledge of the complete unalterability both of character and of mental faculties, we are led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be reached not so much from outside as from within, not so much by theory and instruction as rather by the path of generation. Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste. If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles. - Arthur Schopenhauer: Heredity and Eugenics, by assorted internet neckbeards
Nature's order is supreme: pick the best by their own actions (i.e. opportunity-based) instead of selecting everyone and trying to raise them up.
This is consistent with the moral nature of a conscious but indirectly active God or gods: good is union with the order of the universe, and bad is reversion into personal chaos, greed, doubt, deception, delusion, appetites, moral incontinence, etc.
Modern society has, in its quest for universal tolerance as a means to egalitarianism as a means to pacifism, destroyed the ability of natural selection to operate. As a result, we are rewarding mediocrity and making that the new ideal.
When you think about Utopianism, this is the clearest way to see it: instead of making success the ideal, it makes (universal) success the method by which to make universality the ideal, which flips-around and goes backward as a concept to mean that we must approve of everyone and everything, thus have no standards, thus make mediocrity our ideal.
Which do you want: better, or average? Those are your perennial choices.