Cloverfield, the movie

I watched the film for entertainment, expecting nothing other than mind-numbing entertainment and suspension of my reality. I came out of the cinema, though, with a very deep feeling and bunch of thoughts.

The movie was excellently produced, and it featured many various excellent locations and scenes. The special effects and graphics were precedent-setting and fantastic. Yet because of these good aspects, the negative aspects were even more obvious and were accentuated in the audience’s minds: some shoddy acting, a terrible – nay, appalling – screenplay, and some very poorly directed chapters. At certain times my fellow cinema-goers and I scoffed as we witnessed improbable-car-jump after improbable-car-jump as the movie did nothing to suspend our disbelief.

2012, the movie

The amount of money that was spent on making the film was an obscene $200 million USD (c. £100m GBP). [Source]

Reverse thinking

The money could have been spent making a film which depicted the actual effects of a real climate change; one that we know has already started. So, at some point one or more persons made a decision to make the film 2012.

If I had the money and resources that the 2012 creators had I would have made a film, more like Cloverfield, only it would be depicting the impact of ‘climate change’ as it is contemporarily called.  2012’s story is that of an event which isn’t foreseeable. Instead a film could have been made about the foreseeable horror of what is going to happen (and is indeed already happening in some parts of the world): the wrath of man-induced climate change.

Man stands beside a tree as he watches the 'king tides' crash through his families sea wall, and the sea spills onto his family property, on the South Pacific island of Kiribati.

Imagine what a change could have been effected. The opportunity to open such a large audience’s eyes before Christmas 2009 by shoving in people’s faces a visualisation of the likely effect of global climate horror was foregone. Instead, a corny, almost comedy-like film is screened at cinemas worldwide.

The special effects orchestrators et al. could have been working towards a film and a cause which could have made a real difference to better humanity. The animators could have been put to work making the most fantastically realistic and powerful portrayal of what is happening and what will happen even more to the planet if we continue on this path as we know it – horrendous climate change and human inactivity in solving it.

Climate politics

Instead the film, and I intend not to foster ideas of conspiracy, made a point out of the earth’s natural trends, its own will, and our inability to affect it. This very point is one of the main arguments put forward by those who deny climate change as being man-made and our acting to redress its effects. Interesting. Very interesting.

So when people go to sleep at night having watched 2012, their subconscious dreams about all they’ve seen that day. It dreams about moments from the film, the story they’ve viewed, the characters they’ve empathised with, and it dreams also of how all of this effects the dreamer’s life. Then, remarkably, as it does every night, it makes a logicalisation, rationalisation, categorisation, and organisation of these ideas. Some of the dreamers’ minds will conclude in such a way as to reinforce the idea, belief, message, and portray of reality of those which deny man-made climate change. If this isn’t the case with all the viewers, which I expect it isn’t, it must be the case with at least a few. What a tragedy. What a tragedy that the opportunity to effect such change, such change on peoples hearts and minds has been wasted in such a pathetic way in making 2012.

Qualification

The film does, of course, open people’s eyes and minds to the issues of death, the human race’s survival, and destruction on planet earth – and this is good –, but the points I’ve made afore override this benefit, I believe.

Conclusion

An amazing movie could have been made. There could have been a heroic act, but no heroic act took place. Instead, in 2012, just ‘another’ crappy film was made.

In the context of political issues, I ask myself, should we rate political issues with importance? I have arrived at the conclusion that, yes, of course we should and we should judge importance as being based on the severity of the human suffering involved.

Climate change

In June I wrote the following:

I’m ‘progressive’, but not so much so that I think huge global temperatures changes are acceptable. Nothing is more essential than the world around us. The environment capacitates the fundamentals of life.

I stand by this.

We are told that about 4 billion people out of the current world population of about 7 billion will die as a result of the climate catastrophe that we are en-route to. The truth is that the surviving 3 billion will mainly be the rich in the West, I would like to add.

If we judge the severity of the issue of climate change in terms of potential human suffering that is due to arise, it does seems that climate change is the ultimate issue of our time - for the 4 billion people who would pay with their life, death would be the ultimate affliction.

Reality

I am not advocating that we forget all other issues and focus on climate change solely, of course. However, I believe that climate change simply isn’t on the agenda enough (in government and in the media) as it should be. For instance, regularly the mainstream media subordinates climate change stories to what newspapers editors clearly think are more important issues - these issues can range from ‘celebrity bullshit’ to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. 60% of articles in mainstream media newspapers are brought into existence as a result of government’s actions - press releases, public announcements, chamber debate, and Westminster rumours.

But I ask you…

What of foreign policy in a world where more than half of the population have been killed? What of human rights? What of transport and education? What of gay rights, women’s rights, minorities’ rights in a world where 4 billion people have vanished?

It seems to me that these issues would be dwarfed in comparison to the catastrophe that would have shaken humanity if we continue on our current course.

1. All that truly matters in the end is love.

2. Don’t compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about.

3. Forgive everyone.

4. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.

5. Don’t take yourself seriously. No one else does.

6. Don’t audit your life. Make the most of it now.

7. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting to happen.

8. A writer writes. If you want to be a writer, write.

9. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don’t take no for an answer.

10. Your job won’t take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and parents will. Stay in touch.

11. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.

12. Frame every so-called disaster with these words: “In five years, will this matter?”

13. It’s never too late to have a happy childhood.

14. Make peace with your past so it won’t screw up the present.

15. Life isn’t fair but it’s still good.

16. Over-prepare, then go with the flow.

17. Everything can change in the blink of an eye.

18. However good or bad your situation is, it will change.

19. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn’t be in it.

20. When someone breaks your heart quickly bestow your love on others.

21. Time heals almost everything.

22. When in doubt just take the next small step.

23. It’s okay to let your children see you cry.

24. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.

25. Don’t take for granted what you have got - or you may lose it.

26. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.

27. Get rid of anything that isn’t useful, beautiful or joyful.

28. Be eccentric now. Don’t wait for old age to wear purple.

29. You don’t have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.

30. What other people think of you is none of your business.

31. Whatever does not kill you makes you stronger.

32. Life isn’t tied with a bow, but it’s still a gift.

33. It’s OK to get angry with God. He can take it.

34. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else’s, we’d grab ours back.

The 5 famous and rich volunteers

Bruce Jones

People’s attitudes to the homeless and homelessness

There is no doubt that most people do indeed behave “inhuman[ly]” towards the homeless, and do not “give a toss about what they’re going through”, and at night walk past the homeless as if they were “just a body in a bag”. Probably most people don’t realise just “how easily [homelessness] could happen to someone”. These are the observations of volunteers Rosie Boycott and Bruce Jones. Bruce said “the outrage” of it all is that those in our prison system “have human rights”, but “where’s the homeless’ human rights? Why is a man who can kill got human rights? A person sleeping on the streets has got no rights! … Society is flawed. Society is fucked up!”

Pain involved with homelessness

In thinking about the first episode, I began to ask questions about the pain of being homelessness. I think most people try to, if not consciously, then subconsciously, ‘rate’ pain or categorise it. I was comparing, in my head, the pain of homelessness to the pain of, for example, having ones community bombed. The pain associated with homelessness, it seems to me, is loneliness, helplessness, loss of esteem and hope, and general emotional blackness. For me, however, loneliness would be the most important here. If I was an Afghani villager whose community was regularly being bombed, if I had seen my aunt and cousins die, and if my family was constantly fearing death by forces beyond their control, without doubt there would be an imaginable sense of suffering. Yet, I was thinking, at least I would be able to ‘group’ together with others in the same situation, and seek and share strength with those around me.

Homeless people generally cannot do this - they cannot share their pain; they are alone. If you are homeless it seems that you generally have little or no chance to seek empathy, sympathy, or comradeship. This has to be completely emotionally debilitating. Some of the homeless people on the programme have been on the streets ’sleeping rough’ for 20-25 years, and have generally lived a life of solitude. Loneliness in homelessness has to be an overwhelmingly terrible emotion to endure.

Is it right, is it necessary, is it even acceptable to compare pains?

Yet, I will never be able to judge the pain of homelessness since I have never been there. The programme’s hidden message is that we should never pass judgement on the homeless. We know nothing usually about why or how homeless people became homeless. Moreover, if we know even something about their situation then, as the programme showed, it is likely to be a lie anyway - as it seems many have to lie to survive on the streets (concerning begging). Clearly I know nothing; I’ve never been homeless.

We must open our eyes. Society is indeed 'fucked' up.

I think most people have to open their eyes to the suffering of the homeless on our streets. Many, even most, people walk by the homeless as they sit on the street, denying their existence. The emotional and psychological effect of this behaviour on the homeless are sharply portrayed in Famous, Rich and Homeless.

The most recent episode is available to watch online (if you are in the UK) until midnight, 2 August 2009. The episode is anachronistic, so even if you haven’t seen the first episode, it doesn’t matter at all. I would recommend to anyone who has half an hour to spare that they watch at least some of the programme.

Happiness

Apparently the word ‘happiness’ derives from the word ‘happenings’, which is appropriate in understanding its distinction with joyfulness. [Source] Happiness is aroused because of specific happenings. Good things happen, and happiness is the consequence.

Is happiness something you can possess?

Different types of happiness

Happiness can be broken down into 3 main heads [source]:
• Mental - the pleasure in creating of a better style of life, in pursuing knowledge, in work.
• Emotional - the pleasure of serving humanity, of love, of loyalty to someone or a cause
• Physical - physical pleasures and the pleasure in fulfilling physical needs, a somewhat primitive happiness.

One of my favourite philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer, also makes distinctions between the different kinds of modes of happiness, in Psychological Observations in Studies in Pessimism.

There are different sorts of happiness

Joy

Joy is very different, although related to happiness - it is a deeper, more perpetual experience [Source]. Joy is having delight in a general contentment and strength in life, a general eternal oneness with all in life. Joy can also be a sort of spiritual happiness, a sort of unshakeable peacefulness and faith.

While happiness makes us pleasured, joy warms our hearts.

Some see joy as “an experience which connects us to that which is “Greater” than we are. It connects us to the creative power that is more than the ‘I’ or ego.”.

The difference

Graduating in ones educational life may make us happy, but getting married, or having a child may cause joy, for instance.

We can look at the differentiation in terms of the words opposites: the opposite of joy would be fear, while the opposite of happiness would be misery and displeasure.

Is spiritual happiness a good goal?

Purpose of life

Happiness, many cite, as their main objective and purpose in life. Yet it seems that joy is a far more desirable goal. Aristotle once said, “joy is the meaning and purpose of life”.

—

I hope you found this vaguely interesting, or thought-provoking. I think it’s quite an interesting realm and will probably write about this again at some point.

This post is essentially a “knowledge deposit” for myself and others who may want to bookmark this post for future interest.

Famous debate: Ford-Carter '76 Election

The structure

Simply put, it goes like this:

1. We don’t think there is a problem
2. We don’t agree the problem is caused by what you say it i caused by
–› But even if there was a problem and it was caused by what you say
3. We don’t agree with the way you go about solving it
4. We don’t agree with the world that you would be seeking to create by:
- a. intervening at all in the problem
- b. acting in such a way to solve the problem

Courtesy: Jason Love

An example

For instance, a policy debate on a smoking ban. The proposition says that there should be a smoking ban in public places because it will effectively prevent negative health consequences for those around the smoker.

1. We don’t think that there are any health problems related to the behaviour of smoking in public places [your evidence is weak, we see no negative effects]
2. We don’t agree that these health consequences you speak of are linked with passive smoking [they are probably caused by other factors]
-> But even if we agreed that there were health problems related to smoking in public places and the causal link is as you say it is
3. We don’t agree with your banning smoking in public places, for it wouldn’t properly prevent the negative consequences [clearly these negative health consequences, this so-called 'passive smoking' doesn't really exist]
4. We also disagree with the society you would be creating by:
- a. intervening in this problem at all [by your nanny-state legislating]
- b. by acting in such a way to solve the problem [by restricting the liberties of the individuals involved in banning them from smoking]

Usage

You understand that you won’t normally adopt points 1, 2, 3, 4 in a proper debate - though you could, only your argument would be full of “even if”s. For instance, in reality, I would probably adopt:

3. Your ban won’t properly prevent the negative consequences
4a. this is just nanny-state legislation
4b. this would be simply over-involvement on the part of the government, this restricting of civil freedoms

If you would like a further example let me know by responding in a comment!