Posts tagged Conspiracies
I am a big fan of conspiracies such as the Bielefeld Conspiracy, because they represent something much more interesting than one might initially observe.
How much evidence do we decide is necessary before we accept something as truth? Evolution is often attacked in the states (and basically nowhere else) because there is not enough evidence, the skeptics feel, to make it more compelling than the “just because” doctrine they had been raised in.
However by that logic, how much evidence is there for the moon? Or the sun? These are far away objects in the sky, they could just as easily be facades, flat surfaces on a sphere that surrounds the Earth.
What of Madagascar? Have you, the reader, ever been to Madagascar? Do you know anyone from there? The only time I’ve ever had close interactions with such a place is in an animated film. If I’m just accepting places from films as true then I’ll be packing up my bags and moving to Hogwarts.
Most skeptics of the sciences they don’t understand still accept the broader scientific knowledge. The Earth being spherical is widely accepted while most people, effectively everyone, will never physically see the Earth from a distance to unequivocally support this truth. Likewise the mathematics used to prove it on land are no more complicated than the fundamentals of Evolution. If we are to debate one we may as well debate the other.
Gravitation has no real strong backing. Seeing as the universe is a façade on the innards of a sphere created by god, gravity is merely there. IT just is, created in the seven days and we experience it. We don’t float off the surface of the Earth because we are not meant to, simple as that.
For something more close to home, for many skeptics, what of North Dakota? Honestly, have you ever met a person from this far away place? Have you ever seen it? Smelt it? Stood upon its surface? It would seem to me that North Dakota is a great conspiracy, formulated by the same folks who brought you Global Climate change.
How many things in our lives do we truly experience to the fullest? How many things do we, ourselves, gather all the evidence for an assure ourselves of. Once we begin picking and choosing not what to critique but what to unequivocally deny or accept, do we have anywhere to go but down?
Our minds can only naturally comprehend the things that exist within the scope of our senses. The rest involves philosophy and abstract thought, we can only understand enough about the things outside of our sensory range in a functional sense. Electrons are smaller than the smallest observable tool can detect, but we know they are there, we can interact with them in different ways and their existence does not conflict with any scientific theory or observation.
If electrons, something totally unmentioned in any ancient tome, are acceptable, if the moon, the stars, gravitation, North Dakota, and Madagascar are all acceptable. What then is the foundation for extreme resistance to other deeply data heavy discoveries and theories?
Do we really think there is a conspiracy that doesn’t necessitate any sort of special treatment or funding to any agency? Who would design such a thing and why? What benefit would there be to making up evolution? Even global climate change does not necessitate a punishing change to our lives. So where then is the benefit? Where is the win?
Is it so common to peddle fantasy to minors that we think that everyone is doing it? Is it not possible that there is an actual branch of humanity that wishes to learn something instead of merely smugly saying they already know?
This is why I enjoy that conspiracy, it provides a seemingly outlandish premise but poses an incredibly powerful question. When is there ever enough information to appease all people?
Pictured: A government conspiracy.
This is something I’ve thought about a bit and I’ll admit I haven’t had the time or a strong notion of where to look in terms of gathering hard data. So the following is going to be largely just some guessing I have that relates to why employers provide healthcare in America.
So my theory on why companies provide healthcare is the same as my theory on why college loans were handled by corporate banks instead of by the government. It sounds a bit conspiratorial so if you read this and think I’m retarded at the end I won’t argue with you.
I believe the underlying reasoning is because of an added level of control. When you control the healthcare at the business level you give employers an amazing amount of leverage over their employees. This lessens the chances of dissidence, gives them more power during negotiations and overall creates a phenomenal amount of biased decision making.
Healthcare is so expensive in the US that it is almost impossible to get sick without being employed with a business that provides healthcare. This means once you have that job you’ll eat as much dirt as is necessary to keep your job which by proxy could very well keep you alive.
Student loans seem to be on the same track. If a bank owns student loan debt they will give any amount kids ask for, tis is because their goal is to maximize profit not the welfare of the customer. This is also why student loans have such strict laws on bankruptcy and other alternatives, the rate of bankruptcy from student loans was freakishly low but the law was pushed because banks wanted to maximize profits.
So now you have a system where colleges begin to charge more because banks will give out a loan no matter how large. This creates a system where book manufacturers and other college businesses will charge top dollar because the colleges will just raise tuition. Eventually the college is paying extreme premiums on all items and they state that the reason tuition is so high is because they must pay so much for books etc. However they created the environment that now preys on them and they, in turn, prey on the students who go to their college.
Now college is not likely to get you a job that will pay off your loans anymore, you will but it will take a phenomenal amount of time. This means that any job you get will have a remarkable level of control. Losing the job means going into unstoppable debt from student loans and losing your healthcare.
I’m not certain by any means but I would be utterly shocked if the lobbyists for student loans being controlled (at 0% interest) by banks were not also connected with major nationwide businesses. These systems interconnect so well that it seems highly unlikely that they only benefit by coincidence.
It’s certainly not because of profits. It would be phenomenally cheaper for businesses if the government handled all healthcare, however they would lose a godlike amount of control over their employees, and I suspect control over employees saves a considerable amount more money than the occasional insurance premium bill.
So yeah, those are my 2 cents, conspiratorial and potentially wrong but cents nonetheless.