#societal problems

Ok - so - I like to listen to very old radio shows, especially mysteries and thrillers. Some are very good, and some are hilariously bad.

There is this one that I listened to the other day that was such a perfect prediction of the future it scared me.

And so, Spoiler warnings if you want to listen to it for yourself.

And it's important to note: This is a story from 1942

It is Episode 20, "Beware of Tomorrow." The basic gist is it follows a scientist, the scientist's compatriot, and the main character, another scientist invited to the mansion/laboratory. The head scientist has created a giant, 300 pound robot, named Alber capable of "solving problems," but also, "obeying commands" as well as things like walking, talking, situational awareness, etc. It can "think" and solve problems you ask, but it still follows the orders of what programmed it to begin with.

Sounding a bit familiar yet?

Well, the very night the MC arrives, Alber kills the scientist and flees into the woods. The lab assistant says that it is too dark and dangerous to chase a robot through the forest with just the two of them. He explains for a while now that the doctor was planning to create an even better version of Alber, and that would eventually render Alber obsolete, and because "Alber can think on his own," he suggests that's why Alber killed the doctor.

They plan to contact the police in the morning, and will be able to take Alber out of commission because Alber needs to come back and charge his battery by the end of the night.

Well, morning comes, and the assistant guy is way, way too calm about this. He's just making breakfast, while the scientist's body is still just ... there. The MC returns to the lab, and just as suspect, Alber has returned and is in a sleep mode, charging. He takes this chance to look into what is going on and finds that the robot did not "think" about killing the doctor, rather, it was programmed to. You probably know where this is going by now but the lab assistant is revealed to be the one who did it, because he wanted to create stronger, more weaponized robots (at this point in time, America is still involved in WW2), but the doctor wanted robotics to aid people, not harm. Then the assistant had Alber kill the MC because MC refused to work on more "weapons," was going to tell the police, etc, end of story.

Once again, emphasizing - 1942.

They already knew the bullshit that was going to take place, hence "Beware of Tomorrow."

Now I'm telling this story because I'd like to talk about this in the modern day. There's tons of content, movies, books, theories, tons and tons of things that talk about the fears, issues, etc, of androids becoming sentient, conscious, and emotional beings. And just what they might be capable of. But what we see less of is what the REAL worry is, and what this story was trying to convey.

Truly, I do believe that technology, robotics, mechanics, were developed with good intentions by their originators. I think it is a good and wonderful thing - in the right hands.

But then ... It lands in the wrong hands. And that's when technology becomes dangerous.

We should not be worried about the progression of science and technology in itself, but the people behind it. Those that seek to control humanity by different methods, and you can name countless entities of such. That is what "Beware of Tomorrow" was saying.

A few things, one - the application of human emotions to Alber. The doctor's assistant was easily able to create a believable story that Alber must've killed the doctor out of jealousy and fear. So MC said, "Yeah, that makes sense." Because Alber can think, right? Yes, he can - but he does not think with emotion. We as humans are emotional creatures, and so we apply emotions often to even the most inanimate of objects. So it was quite easy to fool the MC with this explanation. Alber is a robot, but they, the characters, apply humanity to something that is not human. The doctor even gave Alber pronouns, he/him.

Often, we've come to fear technology out of this belief that they are human, and think as humans do. We fear that they will think for themselves. But truly, their "minds" are what they have been programmed to be, and the data they collect. They can obtain the logic of millions of people via the Internet, but remember, those are still our brains, not things it came up with on its own.

Two, as mentioned in the story, Alber's creator had good intentions. It was those (the assistant) that saw the potential for other things. We should be less worried about technology gaining sentience, and be focused on who is running the show, because they are the real problem, and they WANT you to disassociate the robot from the creator. For instance, say you're faced with a killing machine, like the hounds from Fahrenheit 451. It's dangerous. It needs to be stopped. Destroying it will solve the problem at the moment, but it is the people who are the problem, and nothing will stop until they are.

Three, the MC dies for refusing to collaborate with the assistant. This is a theme we see almost everywhere in situations where people are trying to make a change. For instance, ACAB. The police are a system, and those individual officers who want to "change" the system, to uphold what SHOULD be the purpose of serve and protect, well, what happens to them? They get fired, hazed, chastised, etc. Three things can happen from here - they can't beat the system so they join it. Or, they quit being a cop and move on to something else where they can actually do good. And third ... they die. Those who actually went out of their way to protect people end up dead.

i do regret that i'll never be able to love my life out the way i would love to.

i do regret that others will never be able to either.

i regret that we have backed ourselves, as a society, into a corner where we must survive, and not live.

i am so sorry you will not live,

but i do wish for you to try.

sorry, stars-for-eyes, dreams-for-thoughts, hopes-for-life.

it won't happen,

Ignoring whether or not there was some bigger plan behind the pleasure house scene, and also ignoring the fact that Daemon left Rhaenyra alone there: Ending it there and then was just the right thing to do. And I‘m not talking about his motives here (like he felt remorse, he shouldn‘t use her …), but just about the simple fact that Daemon clearly didn‘t want to continue with their intimacy anymore. I didn‘t think I‘d ever had to say this because I thought (hoped) that this was common knowledge but you can‘t imagine how many people I‘ve just seen who went: Don‘t leave her hanging like this after getting her all horny! What do you want, boy, yes or no? What, can‘t he get it up, what‘s his problem?

So let me put this very clear and simple: You don‘t owe anyone intimacy. You don‘t owe anyone sex, even when you were the one who started being intimate in the first place. It‘s totally normal (and happens a lot) to just not feel comfortable anymore in the middle of it, for so many different reasons. And when that happens, it‘s completely fine to just tell your partner, stop there and continue another time, when you‘re feeling better about it. As the one being fucked you don‘t owe your partner that you just take it and be used for their pleasure. As the one doing the fucking you don‘t owe your partner to pull through to satisfy them. (Because yes, this is a gendered discourse, too, because especially cis men are somehow expected by society to always be needy and horny and take what they want, which is a pretty problematic view and has bad consequences for all genders.)

This weekend i had dinner with some old colleagues. During it the topic of gender identity came up.

THE DREADED TOPIC OF THE XXI CENTURY! *faints like an overly corseted lady*

The main topic was regarding a couple that decided to, on a gender reveal party, reveal their child as non-binary. All my female colleagues were outraged. Actually outraged, as silly as that sounds.

I have my own thoughts about it of course: i believe it is no different than forcing normative rules upon children when they can't even say their own names, both points cancel each other out in my eyes, therefore thinking about it is an exercise in futility, like an hamster running on a wheel until it tires itself out. Furthermore, as a childless woman approaching her 30s i feel it's not my place to give opinions on it - as our society so lovingly treats us as if we have little to no value i prefer to continue acting like the old crone witch i expect to become and let society eat itself up while i brew my teas and praise the Hellenic god in peace.

I simply do not care about making a stand either way. Still, if they're is one thing i do not condone is close mindedness. So it does make me feel like raising questions at least:

Why should they care? It's not their child. They might not agree but how does it impact them directly? It's not a human rights violation, it's not child endangerment...

Gender reveal parties are an absolute waste of time. Why even give it value?

Are they so outraged because they fear that their own children, hypothetically, will find it difficulty to deal with other non-binary children? Isn't that inputting your own morals on your children as well?

And when I thought the topic couldn't get more awkward... Someone suddenly states they "don't understand non-binary" and therefore it makes no sense for it to have value or even be considered a thing. (I paraphrase)

So...

If i don't understand mental illness does that mean it shouldn't be a thing? (it'd be nice if it wasn't but thems the breaks)

If i doing understand how the world can be round it shouldn't be a thing? Guess i found out how flat-earthers are born...

Just because you not understanding something it shouldn't make it impossible for others who do. Have your opinions but be willing to accept others as well.

Here is where i actually decided to explain what the concept of non binary is as factually as i was able. There was more confusion as I expected. Some more outrage as well.

I am in no ways an expert as i consider myself a cis-female and have no non-binary friends. What I do is roam the internet frequently. What i do is also study/research into anything related to psychology or brain development. What i do is listen when people talk and try to place myself in their shoes. And what i do not condone is unwillingness to accept that which is different. THAT i know the feeling of. It does not feel good. It does not feel right.

I also know what it feels like to not want to be a woman and to not be referred to as such. The weight of womanhood is one that is heavy to hold. I know how it is to be treated by when people don't know my gender versus when they do (business emails are one example), and how being seen as neither sex could prepare ease that burden. This is in no way my way of saying i understand what it is to be non binary but that i understand reasons why some people might navigate towards it

There was also then the discussion that "they" is not a correct pronoun. I won't lie... this one was when i cracked as the little grammar nazi i am and immediately went on a grammar testing moment. (Bear in mind none of us are native English speakers and there isn't a "right" word for non binary people that sounds correct in our language - latin languages can be a pain in that regard - this is not the case with Germanic languages though.

Fortunately outrage and confusion suddenly stopped as food was promptly served to the table.

If there's one thing we could all agree on, as latin blooded people, is that at least food is a good way to end conflicts 🍝🏳️

Go to school. Get a job. Go to work. Get married. Have some kids. Pay your taxes. Pay your bills. Watch TV. Listen to the news. Obey the law.

Conform to societal standards.

Now repeat after me:

it used to be stuck there because it was physically stuck, it had jammed itself into the canal wall during a sandstorm and couldn’t get out of the bank. It held up loads of traffic, and everyone had a good laugh, because damn, for once we can laugh about a big disruption and funny situation where nobody dies or is seriously injured.

they unstuck it from the bank some time ago. but they didn’t unstick it from the canal, because it caused so many companies to lose money that it’s forbidden to leave the canal until the company pays a fine.

which is, obviously, even funnier at first. get the boat unstuck, make it stuck again. the punishment for getting unstuck after about a week in the canal is to... make you stay in the canal longer.

and then I think about it a little more and yeah, it’s still funny but there’s something else too. something deeper. something different.

we are the ever given.

we have three choices, except we’re not the ones who get to make the choice. we can stay stuck in the canal or we can get out and pay the price for it.

stay stuck in the canal, stay poor, stay out on the streets. stay working a minimum-wage job, without basic respect that everyone deserves, stay down, keep your head low, you made your bed now lie in it.

or you can get out, if you’re lucky and work real real hard. get a high-stakes, high-paying job. get a nice house and get a car and health insurance and what the hell, maybe a sweet upper-middle-class suburban family. and then your insurance runs out because your job was too taxing on your health and you get sick and die because you can’t pay the bills anymore.

dead is dead is dead, they say. dead on the streets, dead in a hospital bed. you’re still dead. it doesn’t matter. but they’re wrong. dead isn’t dead because nobody dies. everyone is still alive in every little scrap of humanity. remove one little pebble and there goes the cave. there are people who you cannot kill. because they are alive in every part of what makes us human.

this is going way too out-of-whack for a metaphor about the human condition and the ludicrous incident of the boat in a canal, so let’s go back to where the ever given was us and we were the ever given.

the ever given isn’t a ship stuck in a canal, it’s a people stuck in a system that’s too narrow for them. the ever given will never die, even after it leaves the canal because the ghost of it will stay in us forever, reminding us who we were and who we might have become.

as long as the ever given is there, and we are the ever given, we live drifting between being trapped in the canal by force or trapped in the canal by ultimatum. either way we’re still stuck in the canal and the only way to get out is by leaving and then by digging out the banks of the canal and making it bigger and making the ships follow regulation so this never happens again to anyone and the ever given and by extension the human population can taste freedom and fairness again.