Calling the Poor and Unemployed "Lazy" is Lazy Rhetoric (and Wrong Too)

Sometimes I have little epiphanies about fairly broad subjects. Today, I had one about the increasing volume regarding the rhetoric that the poor and unemployed citizens are "lazy". Not worth going into details why this rhetoric is so overwhelming right now (see: recession and trying to get rid of foodstamps or something) but needless to say, it exists.

However, while I can only speak about my own experiences, I feel like pointing out that not all unemployed people are lazy (this goes without saying, right?) but that furthermore, being unemployed does not automatically mean that one is not actually a productive member of society.

Since graduating from SUNY Oneonta back in 2009, I have yet to find full time employment. So you'll excuse me while I go into Sir BragsALot mode, but I'd like to use myself as an example to start out:
-While I was a student at SUNY Oneonta, I was credited with completing 750.25 volunteer hours of community service. My volunteer work included working on the SUNY Oneonta Undergraduate Philosophy Conference, the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center (which I also served on the Advisory Committee of after I graduated), and the Student Association Supreme Court, among other organizations.

-While I was still living in Oneonta, I also volunteered at a local emergency room and as an EMT for a volunteer fire department.

-Currently, while I am also doing coursework towards a possible Criminology degree at Wilkes-University, I am also doing an unpaid internship with a local law enforcement agency in Wilkes-Barre. While most of the time I am observing court cases, I have also done clerical work as well.

-For the past three years, I have been writing reviews of LGBTQ related films and now have an archive with more than 100 film reviews that I can call my own. While this arguably has little objective value, I do like to think that these reviews have added to a general understanding of queer cinema.

-On top of all of this, I also work out on regularly on a daily basis in the hopes of pursueing a career in either law enforcement or emergency medicine.

-Most recently, I am now volunteering as a researcher for the Quist, an iOS/Android LGBTQ/Queer history app.

Perhaps this is the height of arrogance, but I would like to think that thanks to my history of volunteering and educational pursuits, that I am not only the opposite of lazy, but that I just might be able to call myself a productive member of society. I just happen to not have been able to turn my productivity into a steady paycheck, yet. I cannot imagine that I am the only person who is unemployed and has spent many hours volunteering in an effort to make the kinds of connections that will lead to a paid position.

Of course there is the possibility that I am some kind of special case and the ranks of the unemployed are filled to the brimming with the lazy and unmotivated. Perhaps, but consider the fact that historically speaking, military veterans have generally faced unemployment rates much higher than the non-veteran population.

Call me perverse, but I look forward to the day when the same politicians who argue that the unemployed are the unmotivated scourge of society, go on national TV and argue that members of the U.S. Military have a poor work ethic.

This is all before we get into how privilege and minority status affects how readily one can find employment. One of the most frustrating aspects of an economics class I took this summer, was the circular reasoning that was taken by one of the required texts regarding this phenomenon. People of color are more like to be unemployed because they are less "productive" workers and the reason they are less productive is because they are less educated then white folks. Do I need to point out the not so minor issue with that argument, even if we accept as true? Like oh I dunno, that racism just might create a barrier to higher education for people of color?

Then there was the argument from the same text about the reason a pay gap exists between men and women. Which is apparently because women are also less productive. Now one reason for the productivity disparity was because women are less likely to pursue higher paying careers in traditionally male dominated fields. The possibility that women were less likely to pursue careers in male dominated fields because of sexist social conditioning never crossed the authors minds. They also attempted to use the "mommie factor" (that is women taking time off of work to raise kids) as another reason women are less productive than men. I will simply point out that this is a sexist argument in of itself, as it immediately dismisses the bearing and raising of kids as not being a form of productivity.

Continueing in this vain but did you know that sending out a "gay resume" means you're less likely to get called by an interested employer? Oddly enough, the same holds true for resumes with "African-American sounding" names. If this is true, we must assume then that your name or sexual orientation must be a reliable indicator to an employer of ones work ethic. Because otherwise things like racism and homophobia actually exist and admitting they exist is so very, very hard.

I do not wish to promote the idea here that one's ultimate worth as a human being is somehow tied up in ones employment status or any such nonsense. I just want to say that ultimately, what's really truly lazy is painting an entire population with the same brush. There is no effort required when it comes to promoting stereotypes.

Further Reading:
National Statistics on Transgender Unemployment - Transgender Workplace Diversity
My Name Is Jason, I’m A 35-Yr-Old White Male Combat Veteran…And I’m On Food Stamps
Homeless Veterans, By The Numbers - Thinkprogress

Of the Day (12/26/12)

The Amazing Sassy


Link
President George H.W. Bush's Letter of Resignation From the NRA.
-From Snopes.com

Quote

Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils — no, nor the human race, as I believe — and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.

-Plato, The Republic, Book V

Historical Queer Poem

But Ruth replied to Naomi:
Do not ask me to leave you,
or to turn back from you.

Wherever you go, I shall go,
and wherever you stay, I shall stay.

Your people will be my people
and your God my God.

Wherever you die, I shall die
and there I shall be buried.

May the Lord deal with me
be it ever so severely
if even death separates you and me.

-Adapted from Ruth 1:16-17

Queer Review: The Boondock Saints (1999)

The Boondock Saints
Director: Troy Duffy
Writer: Troy Duffy
Cast: Willem Dafoe, Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, David Della Rocco, Billy Connolly, David Ferry, Brian Mahoney, Bob Marley, Richard Fitzpatrick

Overview
A bloody mess, but also a glorious one, The Boondock Saints manages to achieve something very few films do: entertain while providing a few kernels of philosophical thought regarding the nature of justice for the audience to chew on.

Synopsis
When the MacManus brothers (Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus) are accidentally pulled into the activities of the Russian Mafia, they are forced to kill two mob hitman in self defense. This provides them with an idea (go after and start killing members of the Russian Mafia themselves) and the means to pull it off (money and guns they steal from the hitmen). With the help of Rocco (David Della Rocco) a friend of theirs who also happens to be a carrier for the Russian Mafia the two go on a vigilante killing spree with members of the Mafia as their target. Soon, FBI Agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe) is hot on their trail, although he quickly finds himself both admiring and sympathizing with the brothers cause.

The Queering
"What is justice?" is a question that has plagued mankind ever since Socrates interrogated Euthyphro on their way to a trail. The very trial that history tells us that ended with Socrates being sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens. The first time I saw The Boondock Saint I dismissed as a rather shallow look at the true nature of justice. However, a second viewing made me realize that while The Boondock Saints does not really seek to answer the question, or even add anything particularly meaningful to the discussion, it does at least manage throw a few interesting twists out there.

The most interesting twist involves the sexual orientation of Dafoe's character, who appears to have been inspired somewhat by the historical view that J. Edgar Hoover himself was either gay or a crossdresser (never mind that the only hard evidence we have comes from a witness who had every reason to defame Hoover or that Hoover aggressively persecuted gay men during his tenure as director of the FBI). In any case, Agent Smecker is presented as a brilliant analysis, who investigates crime scenes while listening to classical music. He is also as being very uncomfortable with his identity. At one point, Smecker is shown in bed with a young hook up, who gets slapped away when he tries to cuddle with the FBI agent.

One of the reasons (it has been speculated) that Hoover never admitted to the existence of organized crime, was because the Mafia had damning evidence that Hoover was gay. Likewise, it is heavily suggested that Smecker's sexual orientation is preventing him from pursuing and prosecuting members of the Mafia. In a key scene, after exiting a gay bar, Smecker stumbles drunkenly into a Catholic Church and ends up in a confession box. Here, he engages in a philosophical conversation with the preacher about the nature of justice, where he laments about the restrictions that the law has placed upon him that hold him back from going after the Mafia full throttle. This conversation convinces him that what the MacManus brothers are doing is just.

The next time we see Agent Smecker, he is in full drag, apparently (and I am reading a bit into this scene I will admit) having decided to fully embrace his identity as a means of aiding the brothers in their quest for vigilante justice. Just as the brothers are breaking societal laws by executing members of the mafia, so too is Smecker violating social mores by engaging in his queer identity.

As far as the plot itself goes, The Boondock Saints has an interesting structure. Rather than simply presenting the MacManus brothers as they go about their business, each action set piece is presneted only after we've seen Smecker deconstruct the resulting crime scene. This essentially kills suspense, but keeps things more interesting than a more straightforward approach might have accomplished. There is still a lot of fun to be had in seeing how close Smecker ends up in his analysis. In one scene, as a means of showing Smecker's growing closeness with the MacManus brothers, Smecker is shown analyzing the crime scene, side by side while the brothers go about their business. It is in this scene, that Willem Dafoe comes this close to parodying one of his most famous moments from Platoon.

At the end of the day, The Boondock Saints is a bloody and violent film that contains enough interesting subtexts to save it from being just another film about vigilante justice.

Recommendation
While failing to achieve full Sainthood, these Irish boondocks deserve a look by anybody who won't mind the fairly graphic violence (and there is plenty of it) contained within.

The Rating
*** out of ****

Trailer



Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Silver Demon: Denial

So while trying to do serious research on The Holocaust, I keep coming across Holocaust Denial crap and getting distracted by it. Or rather sucked in. It's pretty much all the same to me as the 9/11 Truther Movement.

I have to confess, I just don't get it. Where does this kind of shit come from? What causes people to want to deny an established record in favor of a wild hypothesis with no established reason or evidence behind it?

Whenever I come across such sites my mind gets even more twisted around then it probably would by reading about what actuallyhappened in the concentration camps. I feel, I imagine, much like one of those super sentient computers that Captain Kirk keeps coming across on Star Trek, where Kirk just destroys the darn thing by presenting it with a logical paradox. Wait but your evidence that Auschwitz was full puppies and kittens, not gas chambers, is logically flawed. How can you believe it! But you obviously do! THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE *ARGH* *smoke starts pouring from ears*

Part of me, in spite of the obvious time suck this would become, would like to go through and spend some time debunking the crap that comes up on these sites.

For example, one time I was doing research on Father Mychal Judge, for one of those posts I abandoned halfway through, I came across a photo of Judge being removed from the World Trade Center, where the background had been washed out thanks to photo manipulation.

The photo, from a 9/11 Truth discussion board, had a caption that read "photos from 9/11 frequently show washed out backgrounds when mild contrast adjustments are applied. Clear evidence that 9/11 was staged."

In any case, my first reaction was: um, er, no, it's just a sign that the contrast filter on your photo manipulation software is working just fine. Because that's typically what happens when you adjust the contrast, some part of it gets "washed out". If your background happens to feature large amounts of smoke and dust, it will be particulary prone to this happening.

Anybody who has spent time playing around with photo manipulation software and particularly spent some time experimenting with the contrast control could tell you this.

In any case, I really hate to think about what might happen if such a person ever started watching the video of JFK getting assassinated on their computer. Oh my god! The video plays through twice as fast after I hit the 2x button! Time must be warping so therefore OBVIOUSLY OSWALD MUST BE AN ALIEN!

That is all I have to say on the matter.

Silver Demon: In the Name of Science

This past week, the curiosity mars rover landed on the surface of the red planet. A proud moment in science to be sure. Given that this was also at the height of the Chick-Fil-A madness, a meme quickly followed that went like this:

Dear Religion,
While you were busy debating which chicken sandwiches were okay to eat, I landed a rover on mars.
Sincerely,
Your pal science.

This got a chuckle from me. However, perhaps this also is a good time as any to point out that science is not always a pure light into the darkness.

Hubertus Strughold is considered to by the father of space medicine and went to work for NASA following WWII. Dr. Strughold also once held a post at the NAZI Concentration Camp of Dachue. The experiments that Dr. Strughold were connected to involved placing concentration camp inmates in low pressure chambers, forced consumption of seawater, exposure to extremely low temperatures and submersion in freezing waters. These experiments are believed to have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of prisoners.

Dear Religion,
I shot for the moon by murdering the weak. Your Spanish Inquisition was nothing. Envious yet?
Sincerely,
Your Pal Science.

Following World War II, Operation Paperclip went into effect. In a desperate bid to stay ahead of the Soviets during the Cold War, the United States aided numerous German and Japanese scientists in obtaining clemency and U.S. citizenship in exchange for the knowledge they had obtained from experiments that could easily be classified as war crimes. Or as it might also be said, crimes against humanity.

Dear Religion,
While you were busy persecuting those of different faiths, I exploited that bigotry for cannon fodder.
Thank you,
Your Pal Science.

A full accounting of the horrors of the medical experimentation that was conducted during The Shoah would be impossible. The NAZI's did tests to discover the effects of frostbite, hypothermia, malaria, mustard gas, dehydration, the transplantation of tissues, and more.

Under the NAZI regime, gay men and women were also persecuted and imprisoned in concentration camps. Experiments on gay men imprisoned at Buchenwald, undertaken by Dr. Carl Peter Vaernet, were attempted in order to find out if it was possible to use hormones to make gay men straight. If he were alive today, one wonders how readily Dr. Vaernet would fit in with the ex-gay movement.

While castration was only rumored to have been done to the pink triangle prisoners, the British actually went ahead and chemically castrated Alan Turing, who was instrumental in the defeat of the NAZI's, for the grand old crime of being gay. As a result of this hormone treatment, Alan Turing committed suicide by eating a poisoned apple.

Alan Turing, in addition to helping defeat the NAZI's during WWII, is considered the father of modern computer science and the person whom you should be thanking for the computer you are reading this article on.

Dear Religion,
While you were busy persucuting the homos, I've been busy developing the tools that let you do so.
You're welcome,
Your Pal Science.

The history of medical experimentation in the United States has been as equally horrific as that which occured in NAZI Germany. Children, the disabled, the poor, the homeless, prisoners, and military personnel have been among the most commonly used subjects. Prior to the Civil War, expirementation on slaves was a widely accepted practice.

History is easily forgotten and when it comes to queer history, our community has been faced with a particularly virulent purge of anything that could possibly be construed as rainbow tinted.

This has been one of the main reasons I have been motivated to do the work that I have done on my novel Silver Demon. The subject of medical experimentation, particularly the tests that were conducted during The Holocaust, is one that will feature heavily.

Nobody wants to remember the dirty and grimy parts of history, only the roles we played as heroes. I cannot count myself as an exception to this. Frequently, I find myself wanting to bury my head in the sand, only to discover that there is no sand, only the ashes of the innocent.

Politifact: Bad at Politics and Not So Good With Facts Either

Mitt Romney, as it has been widely reported, has not released his tax returns. Speculation as to why he is breaking a tradition his own father started, has almost become an Olympic sport unto itself. One of the more commonly floated theories is that Romney paid little to no taxes for the past decade.

On July 31st, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in an interview with the Huffington Post, claimed that a reliable, albeit anonymous, source had told him that Romney had indeed paid no taxes for the past 10 years.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. Politifact, a site for which I have previously pointed out, has in the past demonstrated an unfortunate inability to distinguish between fact and opinion, took it upon themselves to label Harry Reid's claim Pants on Fire.

Basically Polifacts' reasoning for this label boils down to speculation on the part of tax experts who say that it would have been extremely difficult for Romney not to have paid taxes. Otherwise, this issue remains Reids' word against Romneys'.

So why is Politifact not giving Romney a Pants on Fire rating either? After all, Romney could very easily prove Reid wrong by, you know, doing what pretty much every Presidential candidate has done for decades and simply release his tax returns.

In short, if Romney could prove Reid is in fact a liar, why should Politifact take his side? It is after all easier to imagine reasons why anonymous source would want to remain anonymous (particularly if they do indeed work for Bain Capitol as Reid claims) then it is to imagine why a presidential hopeful would refuse to follow tradition and release his tax returns. For example, I do not think that it is out of the realm of speculation (cough) to assume that there is a substantial chance that Reids' source might get fired for making such sensitive information public.

Then there is the issue of Polifact describing Reids' anonymous source as "shadowy". Really Politifact? What is your evidence for that? Is it now common journalistic practice to label all anonymous sources as "shadowy"? Do know why the term "weasel word" was developed? Is there any possible reason to include such a label, outside of oh say, if one were deliberately attempting to create a partisan smear?

Which brings me to my next issue. Why even bother rating for Reids' claim in the first place? Does Politifact really think that most people do not know what the term "anonymous" means? This is not an issue in which the particulars are not well known to the public.

So what exactly makes a ruling so desperately necessary? If, as Politifact claims, their standards dictate they must hold Reid accountable, why are they not also holding Romney accountable? Why is speculation considered a deciding factor but not an anonymous source?

If Politifact really is all about helping people find the truth in American politics, why bother reporting on an issue in which the details are already well known? Their article and justifications bring no significantly new angle to the table. Speculation at this point is only just that, speculation. The pondering of experts is worth considering, but I fail to see how they constitute substantial evidence in this case.

The truth of the matter is that unless Reids' source decides to go public or Romney decides to release his tax returns, the actual facts are unknowable. Which makes Politifacts posturing about Reids' pants being on fire, all the more galling. By pretending this is an issue in which the truth can be determined, Politifact has instead created a lie of the highest order.

Social Constructs and the Natural Order Part 3: Free Will, Choice, and Self Determinism Within Social Constructs

This is the third in a series of planned philosophical essays and therefore will not make sense if you have not read the first one.

Social Constructs and The Natural Order

Table of Contents
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: The Evolution and Survival of Systems
Part 3: Free Will, Choice, and Self Determinism Within Social Constructs
Part 4: The Role of Science and Religion
Part 5: Social Constructions Involving Race, Ethnicity and Culture
Part 6: Social Constructions Involving Gender and Sexuality
Part 7: Thoughts on Creating more Ethical Systems

If there was ever a more hoary concept than free will, I have yet to come across it. Basically, we all like to think of ourselves as entitities capable of determining our own destiny. We call ourselves "self made men" and arrogantly assume that could possibly be true on any level.

Of course, it should be important to note to define what free will is. Free will, for the purpose of this series, shall be defined as, "the ability to freely choose between two (or more) options, with those two (or more) options leading to significantly different outcomes."

To sum up me feelings on the matter, I do not believe in free will and ultimately that all "choice is an illusion".

In regards to social constructs this is important for several reasons. One, while "free will" is technically not a social construct in of itself, it is a false belief that is used to justify a lot of really problematic social constructs. For example, libertarianism not only requires a society of entirely rational individuals to function (good luck with that) it also requires that they are all capable of acting according to the principles of free will.

Furthermore, in our current society, conditions such as poverty and homelessness is not seen as the ultimate consequence of imbalanced and bigoted power structures, but the consequences of the choices of the individuals who are poor and homeless.

Than there is the reality that "choice" is seen as an empowering concept in of itself. By making consumers believe that they have "chosen" a particular brand (rather than having been skillfully manipulated by advertising) companies are able make costumers feel good about a given purchase. By selling the concept of free will to consumers, "choice" becomes another tool in a companies sales tool kit. Modern capitalism, like libertarianism, relies on the belief of it's proponents in free will in order to function.

I don't have much more to say than that I'll be exploring this more in the last part, Thoughts on Creating More Ethical Systems.

Queer Issue: Choosing to be Queer is But an Illusion.

Sometimes, as someone who majored in philosophy in college, there comes a certain times when watching certain debates play out, feels to me like watching two boxers going at but where both participants were heavily drugged and blindfolded. This is in addition to neither ever having been properly taught how to spar in the first place.

One debate which exists within the queer community that stands out in this category above all others is the discussion on whether or not one is "born" gay. The arguments of both sides tend to break down like this.

Pro: Sexuality is not a choice, we can't choose who we're going to be attracted to. The scientific evidence all points to sexuality having a genetic component. Furthermore, if sexuality is not a choice than it would mean conclusively that queer behaviour should not be outlawed at all or discriminated against in any way.

Against: Sexuality is a choice and we should not have to justify our lifestyles by claiming that it is not a choice. Furthermore, discrimination and bigotry have not ended for those groups (people of color, women, etc.) who did not choose their minority status either.

Now let me say that both arguments have flaws. Allow me to break them down.

Pro: Moral is different from natural, a mistake many people make. I have problems with the term "unnatural" as well, anything that is "unnatural" technically can't exist (or exist only in imagination). If one desires something, then that desire is natural. Furthermore, simply because one naturally desires something, does not make it moral. If I desire to kill someone who wrongs me, killing them would still be "immoral", no matter the strength or innateness of that desire. There is also a good possibility that pedophilia itself is also an innate desire. There is good reason for paedophilia to remain illegal, no matter how natural or innate the desire to have sex with children is for some individuals.

If we reduce morality to that which we naturally desire, then anything I desire becomes moral by default. It would create total chaos. I want to kill? Fine! Steal my neighbours property? That's cool! Rape and pillage? Get your freak on! Obviously there needs to be some other criteria altogether for developing morality. I'll get to one later, but that's the gist of why mere desire does not work for justifying one's behaviour.

Against: The argument that we queers should not have to justify our existence by proving that sexuality is innate has one obvious flaw - it is a normative claim and has absolutely nothing to do with the way the world is. Technically speaking, I even agree with it. In an ideal world, people would not need to justify sexual activity based upon how natural or innate their desire, but rather on the consent of all participants. This should be the criteria, nothing else.

However, I have to point out that we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a cruel and arbitrary one. There have been cases where queers have been able to pass legislation by arguing that being gay should belong to a protected class (much like race and gender). In short, there are actual benefits to being able do demonstrate that one's sexual orientation is innate, rather then a product of free will.

Which brings me to the last and most important point to all of this. There is absolutely no reason to believe that free will exists. Granted this is hardly a decided philosophical issue but it is one that is very relevant to this discussion. In order to be able to choose to be queer, then free will would need to exist in order for it to be a genuine choice. If free will does not exist, then all choices are naught but an illusion, including the choice to be queer.

I know this is an idea that most people do not like. After all, we like to think of ourselves as autonomous beings capable of changing the world around us. This desire (which is natural for any sentient being) would of course lead to one believing in that free will exists, even when it does not.

However, I believe in determinism simply because of well, all the evidence points to us living in a world that obeys a few simple rules of physics, which implies a universe with a set future. If the future is set, then we can not affect through mere application of will, it is no more complicated than that.

Add in the mounting evidence that sexual orientation does have it's roots in our genes and it becomes increasingly difficult to see how sexual orientation is a choice. I have no strong evidence to back myself up on this, but I would hazard a guess that bi, pan, and omnisexual individuals, as well as those with a fluid sexual identity, are among those who are most likely to view sexual identity as a matter of choice.

So in summary:
-There is no rule that says a natural desire means that such behaviour is moral.
-In an ideal world we should not have to prove scientifically that we exist or that being queer is not a choice in order for queers to be accepted by society. Only the consent of all participants would matter when determining the morality of a sexual act. Too bad we don't live in an ideal world.
-Given the lack of evidence for free will, therefore it is only logical to believe that being gay is not a choice by default.

All clear? Agree or disagree? Let me know!

Social Constructs and The Natural Order: Part 1: Introduction

Note: the following is the first in a series of planned philosophical essays that I shall be writing regarding what can be called the Natural Order. First, allow me some pretension in assuming that I am capable of doing what I intend to do. I make no claim that what I am about to argue here is anything more then the ravings of an individual who thinks he understands "How The Universe All Fits Together".

Social Constructs and The Natural Order

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: The Evolution and Survival of Systems
Part 3: Free Will, Choice, and Self Determinism Within Social Constructs
Part 4: The Role of Science and Religion
Part 5: Social Constructions Involving Race, Ethnicity and Culture
Part 6: Social Constructions Involving Gender and Sexuality
Part 7: Thoughts on Creating more Ethical Systems


To begin, let us consider some history. The universe was created in a bang, either by some grand God saying "let their be light", a flying spaghetti monster waving a noodly appendage, or through physical forces we don't yet fully understand. Whatever. At some point, galexies formed out of gasuous nebulas, then a solar systems came next, one which happened to have star we call the Sun at it's center around which would revolve our planet earth. Then upon this earth came a series of increasingly complex organisms which would separate and evolve out into different species. Over time at least one of these species would develop what can be called rational consciousness.

Now let's stop right here because this development is key to everything else I'm going to talk about. Why? Because up until now, everything that happened in the universe followed certain hard rules, what we might call "the natural order", that is "the rules governing the way the universe is". Organisms follow the rules of evolution, which is grounded in the rules of chemistry and physics and influenced by the geological environment. In general, scientists study these rules in an attempt to know them. Most importantly, these rules must be followed. If a rule or law science has decreed to be a part of the natural order is broken, then science was wrong about that rule. It is important to note, that there is no proof that we humans are capable of knowing the natural order in it's entirety.

So why is the development of of rational consciousness so important? Because with the development of self awareness, we humans were capable of developing new rules and systems. Specifically, we developed what could be labelled most generally as social constructs. Now by "social construct" I am of course referring to any rule or system that is dependent upon the faith of rational beings in order to exist. This makes social constructs very different from the natural order, which does not depend upon faith in order to exist.

In distinguishing between the natural order and social constructs, I must distinguish between two different kinds of beliefs. Beliefs about the natural order can be either right. For example, if I believe that there exists an all powerful god who sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell, then I can be either right or wrong depending on if there actually exists an all powerful god who sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell depending upon their faith in that God. Technically, I could also be considered to be partially right if there actually exists an all powerful god who sends people to heaven or hell depending on the number of snickerdoodles they consumed during their lifetime.

Beliefs about social constructs though are different, since social constructs are dependent upon belief in order to exist in the first place. Therefore, beliefs that are solely regarding social constructs technically cannot be "wrong". They can be called misguided, they can have devastating consequences for those who believe in them and for others, but they cannot be incorrect. If people believe in governments, economies, languages, then these things exist and the beliefs of the faithful legitimize and give power to those constructs.

Another important point needs to be made though, while social constructs are catagorically distinct from the natural order, they are also constrained by the natural order and cannot break it. It is however possible for false beliefs of conscious beings in the natural order to be created or develop within social constructs. It is also possible for social constructs to develop that ignore or are ignorant of the realities of the natural order.

Summary
-Social constructs need to be believed in order for them to exist and therefore are categorically distinct from the natural order which needs no rational conscience being to justify it.
-Social constructs are constrained by the natural order but false beliefs are still possible within them and to be generated by them.

(I imagine this introduction is going to seem silly to people, but bear with me, I plan to start covering more interesting and complicated ideas in future instalments)

Coming Soon: Part 2: The Evolution and Survival of Systems