Adonis Diaries

Archive for September 15th, 2010

Every minute, one hundred persons die; two hundred are born.  Suppose you decided to take a break from current news and shut down all communication with the world for just 24 hours.  The fact/statistics is still there in your mind:  Within the 24 hours of your total vacation from the turmoil of life 840,000 died and about 1.6 million came to life.  Among the new-born 40% are from China and India, another 45% from the developing countries.  I can conjecture that, with the current state of affairs, 25% of the new-born, alive today, are dead within the week.  Another 25% who survived the first week will die of famine and curable diseases (very affordable medicines not available).

A century ago, a family would give birth to a dozen in order to retain half of them to adulthood.  There is progress in that babies are not being born still dead as a century ago;  medical improvement, marriage regulations, and contraceptive alternatives are limiting the number of unwanted babies; is that progress?

Let me venture in unchartered territories.  One billion persons are suffering from hunger or one eighth of mankind population.  Once struck by famine, the probability of experiencing famine again is very high; the correlation between famine prone individual and dying of curable diseases is almost 100%.  Thus, among the 150 surviving children in one minute, more than 20 will experience hunger and necessarily die of curable diseases.

Let me venture a little further.  if at least 25% of world population are homeless or have no shelter for most of their lives then, out of the 130 surviving children at least 30 will be going through life without a shelter. Knowing that in developed States, capitalist systems need 20% of its citizens to be from the downtrodden in order to maintaining the slaving market going on then, at best 80 of the surviving new-born per minute will have a semblance of hope to making it to old age.  If we discount road kills, preemptive wars, civil wars, ethnic wars, gang wars, polluted water, genetically altered bacteria and viruses, incurable diseases, and the health a safety related to environmental degradation then, in the medium term, only 60 new-born with potential to survive to “life expectancy” statistics will remain out of the 200 this minute; is that progress?

Knowing that a few in each country hoard 50% of the total wealth (10% in the USA, about 20% in the European Union and Japan, only one percent in India, and maybe 5% in China) then, no more than 6% of world population have the potential to be educated, professionals, and well-to-do.

You do the math: 6% by 60 equals four individual, at most, of the 200 new-born to survive the massacre in a good shape. The four privileged individuals will have to bear the “burden” of financially, technologically, and politically to caring for the pain, suffering, calamities striking mankind.

Are we reduced to little turtles scrambling to water sources (that are depleting exponentially) and being decimated before reaching destination?

Unless social, political structures, and world policies are geared to alleviating the pain and suffering of the most needy then mankind is doomed, regardless if environmental degradation stabilizes, which is highly doubtful.

Someone wrote: “pain is far more powerful and potent than love, life, loyalty, and dignity.”  If love, life, loyalty, and dignity take the back seats to pain and suffering then, on what can mankind rely on to survive and prosper?

I contend that, in this current social and political structures, at most a third of the new-born in one minute will eventually grow  to monitor, supervise , educate and run plans and programs designed to alleviating pain and suffering.  One person out of 50 will have the means and power (financially, professionally,or politically) to decide and put to execution the plans and programs designed to alleviating pain and suffering in this wretched world.

Do you joke with total stranger? Don’t your jokes connote a political undertone?

Is cracking up memorized jokes reserved just for schmoozing parties? As to proving that you are a cool guy?

Is it proper to laugh, smile, or crack jokes with strangers?  It appears that cracking up ready-made jokes is the most common communication methods while schmoozing in party of strangers:  Are we trying to putting up the mask of the optimist because that is the best mask for generating contacts in our business deals, or whatever interest we perceive in a potential professionals?

Is cracking up jokes the best method for letting “interesting people” recall our “famous” name?

The danger is that you are joking with someone before getting acquainted with his fundamental line of thinking, and attitudes toward essential ethical and moral inclinations. The odds is that your name, if retained, it is for the strong negative impression you left in the party.

Do you know a close friend who never laughed, smiled, cried or didn’t allow jokes to be told?  Is it proper to laugh or smile or cry in society?  Is it decent to laugh in an assembly of strangers?  How about cracking jokes in an assembly of strangers?

Sincere smiles is good and sincere laughter is even better:  It is good for the health and for the stability of your mental well-being. Yes, I have the right and I can laugh on everything and at everyone; but I shouldn’t crack jokes with everyone.

For example, a famished person may joke with a hungry pal about lack of food, but it is indecent for a well-fed individual to butting in that sensitive problem.

The topic of this post is:  Am I permitted ethically and morally to cracking jokes among people I don’t know?  For example, is it decent to tell racist jokes among racist people?  Is it morally proper to tell feminist jokes among misogynists (regardless of gender)?

I know that people who are not racist or misogynist don’t mind jokes coming from people who are not racist or misogynist respectively, even if the jokes are related to your religion, sect, sex,  minority communities, and idiosyncracies.

Reinforcing bad behavior, political ideologies, and tendencies that harm the social equilibrium of a community is bad politics.  You don’t want the enemies of a stable community, struggling for civil and human rights, to feeling emboldened with their perceived majority and thus, starting to disturb the peace.

Is it ethical to stand up comedians to crack sexist jokes and belittling entire minorities in an assembly that are total strangers, just for the money?  For sure, stand up comedians are reinforcing the bad tendencies of most of the audience, one way or another, assuming that the jokes are not at his own expense, and related to topics he knows best as part and parcel of the group he is affiliated with.

The worst of all jokes are publicity ads using women as sex symbols to market products.  Half mankind is made a laughing joke for selling products and services.  Most probably, they are your children most affected by these ads because they follow trends.

There is something called “privacy”, being among people of same characters and attitudes. There is something called “respect” of fellow-man and it has nothing to do with prudish behavior.  There is something called “human rights” and it has nothing to do with virtue.

This topic is not about being politically correct:  shocking people into reflection is the best alternative to reforms.  This tendency of wrapping us in straight jackets of “politically correct expressions” is restricting freedom of expression and aiding political aristocratic classes to clinging to power by uniformity of our language, culture, ideology, and behavior.

This topic is about exercising your power of reflection and good sense in not reinforcing public enemies who lost their compassion and whose cognitive brain is shut down and simply relying on their limbic system.




September 2010

Blog Stats

  • 1,522,052 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 769 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: