Semantics.

What makes "Communism" such a bad idea?  Well you may begin by referring to the use of communism in different countries as a means for government, associating it with the red communistic USSR and its propaganda, and unfortunately there were some bad cases that arose.  Primarily due to the fact, I believe, of greed amongst those in power.  Any one person will say that once given power, they will not in turn become like the dictator of another country for they are considered to be the "bad example" of what a ruler should be like.  However, there are many problems with this assertion.  For one, it is within human nature to focus on the negative outcomes of events as opposed to the positive for it refers to our awareness of Murphy's law: what can go wrong, shall go wrong at the most inconvenient time.  As such, focusing on what can be categorized as things going wrong is beneficial to the individual attempting to partake in such an endeavor for they will at least be aware of what can go wrong, and how to avoid that possible outcome.  Using the "bad example" dictator as the model of what not to be for a communistic leader, this alters the standard from being absolutely "communist" in its inception, to  simply not being as bad as the previous leader. Now I know what you are thinking (not really, but that statement was rhetorical). If you follow this process, at the end, you will yield a leader who is good in them of themselves, and completely altruistic towards their neighbors and fellow communists.  This never happens. One of the reason why is that it is within human nature to have a preference towards greed.  Even the most altruistic person is greedy.  Not in the sense you may be thinking of, but for some, altruism itself is greedy due to motives: the motive/duty to give back to a community based on obligations towards others, or, as in Elements of Moral Philosophy (Rachels) touched upon, the act of altruism is motivated by pity for another or to satisfy one's self.  What if someone donated money, just to donate money for charity?  From hindsight, it seems as if the act is, in it of itself, beneficent for the act of philanthropy is to give to others solely based on care for others.  But is this the central motivation that drives a person to "give back" to one's community?  There are other underlying factors that may not be made completely obvious.  Think about it, until telepathy is established in humans, we will never know what drives a person to act in a way that they do.  This includes that the person may have wanted to donate for the purpose of boosting their image so that they are seen as being superior to others who are less caring towards those who need help.  It can also be the case that one pities others in third-world countries for they are seen as less-fortunate than us, and in turn it is our responsibility to help them out for we have the ability to do so.  Or it could simply be the case that a community is on the brink of death by starvation and the only way to save them is to send money so they can buy food for their community, by which it will easy the philanthropists conscious if they in fact donate money instead of letting the community die when they in fact had a chance to do something about it. 

To keep it short, although ethics is almost never short, there are various motivations for why people partake in philanthropy and know that there are instances where what may seem as pure intentions, may have an underlying reason.  Not to diminish the fact that the act may be, in it of itself, a selfless act with no other intentions whatsoever.  This sort of outlines and sets up reasons why communism does not work all that well.  It's a rather simple idea, really.  Everyone does something, gives back to the community, and the community flourishes.  But what weighs tasks in terms of equality for all those within the community?  That is to say, in a communistic community, the work of a doctor is equal to that of one who is a janitor.  Hindsight tells us that there is clearly a difference, for growing up in a Capitalistic society we view doctors as being more important for they are the ones who have the ability to treat and save lives, while janitors only clean up trash.  But if you really think about it, a doctor is only as great as the conditions he is given to work in.  Each contributes towards the work of the other.  The doctor creates mess, the janitor cleans up the messy area.  With this simple outlook, both seem equally important.  But then the idea of workload enters the equation and asks that if a janitor works harder than a doctor who is private practice, meaning the janitor not only has to work more hours, but is also verbally abused if they do not finish cleaning on a timeline, or has to scrub for hours to get stains off the walls, does the workload equal for the two professions?  Similarly, comparing a janitor with a lifeguard, are the two professions equal?  One of the main reasons communism doesn't work is this notion of equality, for some people view their tasks as being more important or more work-intensive than others, which leads to this sense of unfairness.  Another is greed, as I mentioned earlier.  Greed is a horrible trait that humans have, for we are, by nature, drawn towards having ownership of things.  If you own anything, then you fall under this category.  Once we are comfortable, then we begin to give excess supplies away for we are able to do so, meaning that until the community reaches a state of equilibrium, there will be a competition of resources and a lack of generosity amongst those who live in that community.  Which brings up the position of power, where those who are in power have priority to resources if there is no abundance.  As such, greed takes over so that those in power can reach a state where they are comfortable.  But this most never happens, since innovations will never cease to exist.  As such, there will always be items that will be created and discovered that the ones in power do not have, and if they want it, they are given the power to get it, despite disregarding those who are suffering in the environment where resources lack. 

This is an abnormally long post, and I will not really draw it out much longer but I lightly touched on the ideas as to why communism does not work. There will be those who are greedy, and those who wish only for power and will not give up the position of power they hold that has the ability to fuel their greed.  I realized that there is a fine line that exists and outlines the differences between communism and a dictatorship: communism relies on the power of a LEADER, while a dictatorship has a DICTATOR.  Going off of general definitions, if you have an individual unwilling to give up their power and use it solely for their benefits and those whom they deem to receive the benefits, that is a dictatorship.  But like Jesus (you can choose to believe him or not, I have no preference and am open to both opinions since I am not that in touch with religion), there is a difference between what a King is, and what a Leader is; hence why Jesus abhorred the name "King of Kings" and "Messiah," for I believe that it was his thought that he did not see himself as a king, but he saw himself as a leader.  In that respect, really quick overview, Jesus was primarily in dirty clothes much like commoners, held no money for that associated with empire and he wanted to be equal with his fellow commoners, and he walked by foot. Sorry this is so long, but this is my final point: a Leader is one who guides and allows for people to decided on their own whether they wish to follow a certain system or not, whereas a King is one who forces upon followers his ideals and makes everyone his "bitch" basically for he is seen to have the right to all lives in the empire/kingdom by birth (and him being the closest entity to a deity is a factor).  Communism will only work as long as it has leaders to guide those under the system but once a king/ruler comes into the once-communistic system, it changes to a dictatorship.

-JuzoInspired

(PS Since this is primarily on politics, I will post another entry later today about a scientific revelation I have had LOL)

Lost.

Well, like I had said on my other blog, there are issues here that need be discussed in the realm of the universe.  But that time is not now.  For one cannot imagine the vast universe in terms of what he may see, or what he may think to see; ultimately, leading to the reality that begs the question, will we truly see the universe as an object with bounds?  Or is it, in its self, outside of the bounds that we choose to turn to in order to constrain it such that our Homo sapien brains can comprehend such a limitless object?  Much like black holes (Not confirmed to exist, nor can its existence be refuted), can our minds understand the composition and mechanism of such a thing?  Most likely.  Much like Einstein and his stumble into the realm of Relativity, humans are always bound for flourishing.  That is not to say that it may happen in any of our lifetimes, or even in a language we can understand.  All I can say is that one day, it will happen.  A simple mistake can actually turn into the answer to such questions (i.e. Newton and the apple, discovery of penicillin). Again, I am merely a student interested in medicine but one must wonder, especially in a broader sense, what are the answers to problems that we currently have and to the ones that we have not yet found? A lot is dependent on the effort you put forth towards what you are interested in.  As for me, I am interested in physics and astronomy, but even all the time I have within my hourglass is still not enough to even begin to scratch the surface that encompasses these two subjects.  Not that I am going to give up from the get-go, but just realize that many discoveries in science were made with the help of others in collaboration; I may not have others interested in what I would like to look into, much like how many people read this blog.  Collaboration not only allows different/challenging perspectives, but it also allows people to open their mind to different possibilities and for that, you enter a new realm that few people ever venture into: the realm of divergency.

Third Day.

Ever notice how Third Day sounds like thirty?  Ah to get away from cliche answers, onto the fun stuff.  So today, whilst watching a movie in class, I decided to do some more pondering into the void of my mind, to see if there were any free-floating ideas.  And there were!  So today, I shall pose 2 to you today.

Everyone is hyped about the development of a "warp drive" which will allow space ships to move at/faster than the speed of light.  From the outside, this is a pretty solid plan in that if something quicker than the speed of light is developed, then we truly will be able "to go where no man has gone before."  Thinking about all of the planets and stars that are lightyears away, just imagine.  LIGHTYEARS, that means that even light travelling at 3.00E8 is still going to take a year until it reaches the star.  That is only one way too.  But if something faster than light were developed then the amount of time it takes to reach the destination would decrease significantly.  This is great, but think about ourselves for a little while :)  Granted that Newton's laws still apply to what is may be seen as the vacuum known as space, one still must wonder how much force is acting upon the person if they were to experience something faster than the speed of light.  Based on Newton's third law, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" known as inertia in this case.  Your body is not moving beyond light speed at the time the ship is at beyond light speed, so you will feel force.  Unless a technology is developed where a force can be generated to counteract the forces produced by the ship, it is highly unlikely that warp speed will be developed soon.  Or we wouldn't feel acceleration in our cars.  But I do challenge someone to develop warp speed for some time in the future, when the technology is hopefully a little more advanced, one will be able to develop such a device to counter the force produced by moving faster than the speed of light, which will be fantastic in developing space ships like on Star Trek.

Lastly, I am a little lazy to look it up, but what composes the ozone layer?  And with that, is gravity keeping it in the spherical shape it is in right now?  When we learn about the genesis and mechanisms or forming an ozone layer, we will be able to test and produce ozone layers on other planets which may lead to explorations to different planets and habitation on those planets as well, in the event of scarcity of resources on Earth which I predict may be some time in the future.

This was a post on space exploration, and thank you for your time!  Happy thinking :]

-JuzoInspired

Courage.

As I write this frantically before I have work at 6:00 PM, what is courage?  There may be the nothing that acting despite the presence of fear to result with an act that may be glorified by others, can not only be seen as heroic, but also courageous.  But does the act of throwing one's life below another's in order to save them, or act on their behalf, consider that action to be courage?  One may never know.

In my opinion, it seems that courage is in fact parallel to the definition given above.  It is to "act in a situation, on the behalf of someone else, despite their posing threat to one's self."  That is that acting despite fear, is what is courage is defined to be.  However, this does not mean one is rash and reckless to throw themselves into every situation to be a hero.  The act of courage roots from this notion that there does lie a certain risk in the actions that one can take, and that upon one weighing out the pros and cons of the actions that they are about to take, that they act in such a way to result with the favorable outcome.  This is to say the event will result the way they wish it to be, but none the less, the ethic decision the individual partakes in the ethical dilemma is not one without gravity.  Running out of time here, I will simply end with a thought that my professor had put into my mind whilst discussing Aristotle.  Courage is considered to be a virtue, and there is a reason for it.  For courage is important to the person, and in itself, defines and shapes the person into being and allows that person to move towards a path of life that parallels with the end designated for persons; to be happy.  I will write later about happiness v. unhappiness, but all you need to know is that courage is a virtue for a reason.  Without courage, can you imagine what you would not be able to do?  Ask a girl to a prom, go in front of an interviewing committee, or talk to a person on the phone.  I'll end with simply saying [inspired by my ethics professor: professor Berry]: courage can only be cultivated by using courage.


-JuzoInspired

Initiation.

Much like my other blog, (check it out if you haven't already) this blog will be primarily devoted to ideas that have popped into my head whilst daydreaming in classes that do not pique my interest.  As an introductory, my name is Michael and more info will most likely be in the above description when I get time to fill it out.  However, the purpose of this blog is not simply just to write random ideas in my mind that pertain to absolutely nothing: my hope is that this blog will affect at least one person in this world to become an innovator.  I that fails, at least you'll get a kick laughing at my posts or at the very least, having a broader understanding of "the world" as opposed to the secular opinion/thinking you may have now. That is not to assume that you are any lower than myself, but this will be used as a tool to guide into a world that does not focus on using information you gain through school primarily as surviving in life, but the markings of a movement that our ancestors have also undergone in Enlightenment and innovation.  With that being said (I'll most likely explain the blog in more details later but I'll stagger it between these first few posts, I'll write down two things I thought about the other day.  To address one of the more immediate issues, there is rumor of a space project where people will be sent to Mars in order to begin colonization of the planet as a secondary resource in the event that Earth's resources run out.  Not a bad idea, correct?  On the surface, it is a completely sound plan (so was the Titanic) but one must think about Murphy's law: anything that can go wrong, will go wrong at the worst possible time.  Say that these people do successfully land there, what exactly is in Mars that will sustain these people? So we agree that resources will be coming from Earth to sustain them until they can begin a functional ecosystem on the planet.  However, like the biosphere project (I forgot when exactly they had begun it but it was in the 90's or something), creating a sustainable environment is a lot harder than people think.  Vegetation and equilibrium on our planet did not happen overnight, and the problem that the project had was over consumption of oxygen be the organisms within the biosphere which the vegetation could not compete with to maintain the CO2-oxygen balance, thus they had to pre-maturely end the project, or die without oxygen.  That being said, what will their source of oxygen be like? Based on the structure of space suits, I am unsure how long the colonists will be able to survive off of the air in the ship, for I assume that it does not provide a source meant for long-term stays.  Furthermore, what if the colonists have children? Not an unlikely thing to happen (come on, libido is hard to control) but that will lead to an unexpected increase in resource demand and an increase in population.  All in all, the idea may need to be thought out by the people applying to be colonists a little more, that is if they are worried about these issues.  Lastly, the other thing I thought about the other day was nuclear reactors and the process of fission.  Fission creates a large amount of  energy for it is the process of emitting heat and energy in the form of radioactive decay as the element breaks down into a more stable form. (May not be correct about this, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong)  The question I pose to you, is what is the mechanism for this process? How does it work? For if fission was driven entirely by heat, then the first thing to do would be to cool it down to prevent further fission from occurring.  But much like a chain reaction with positive feedback, the energy and collision of neutrons to create elements in their excited state is what not only leads to the radiation of energy in the form of heat as that element decomposes, but also the emission of that energy in the form of the more common gamma rays.  Since I'm too lazy to think about it, I challenge any one of you to determine a solution to this problem for I am merely a Biology student interested in medicine (as my other blog will tell you) and hopefully those who do discover a viable solution to these problems and innovate new technologies based on these ideas I have will change the future.

-JuzoInspired