Thoughts On Things

Entry 25

Fiction really is great. If I were rich, I'd no doubt spend all my time reading and watching things. Even with an exorbitant amount of money, I doubt life could be better than fantasy. In fiction, it's all perfect. Of course, if it's done well, that is. The characters have aims and goals and are incorruptible; even if corrupted they're great and pure. I could certainly lose myself in that life if I were rich. Money buys fiction, and fiction is happiness. 

I sometimes wonder whether or not I'm lonely. Then I seem to remember that, by my belief, loneliness is an evolutionary mechanism meant to promote reproduction and sticking in a group to increase chances of productivity and survival; in the modern day, I can survive just as well by myself, and have no real desire - beyond my biological incentive - to have children; after these thoughts are once again placed inside my mind, I feel loneliness is useless, irrational, and get rid of the notion that I could be feeling it. That in itself is foolish, man is certainly not a rational creature in most cases. We should know how to act from a scientific perspective, yet we certainly don't act that way. In order to progress our species' evolution, it would be much more rational to devote a lifetime to studying, with the rest focused solely on providing enough food for the world. Of course, everyone would reproduce regardless of sexual attraction - partners would be decided based on which genetic qualities, when combined, would result in the best offspring. And yet, entertainment exists. 

In the same way I regard loneliness as useless, I regard a few other emotions the same. Love, an adaptive measure meant to promote reproduction and staying in a group, useless. Hate, to tell me what to avoid - do I not have fear for that purpose? And disgust? I am not sure enough of myself to know whether or not these emotions are made for the purposes I designate them as made for, but am fairly confident I am on the right track. 

In the novel Notes From Underground, I seem to recall the narrator wishing to be defined as something, even if that thing be negative. This lines up with my own fantasies, my own daydreams, very well. Every day dream with myself in it, I am dominated by one characteristic. Lazy, heroic, hateful, loving, pious, depressed. I want to be a one-dimensional character, for the most part. At least then it is easy to understand what I am. Instead, I am human, of course, as the rest are. 

I think, in the modern day, the internet can be considered a third parent to a lot of children. Likely to most born after 2004, I'd say, and especially so for those born more recently. Technology is everywhere, with more people having a mobile phone than clean drinking water. Thus, it is impossible to avoid without extreme, and inconvenient, measures. And with technology comes the internet. Children today can access it before they learn their first words. The worst part about it is that it's perfect for children, teenagers, adults, the elderly; it's convenient and enjoyable, which makes most want to use it. Since so many people use it, it's easy to peddle any bad message you may have. One man could have the same power of propaganda as any government in the world, if not more. And one government could have the same power of propaganda and information control as God, if not more. But I am not talking about the government for now. I see a lot of cynicism towards governments in media, in life, and feel it has had the effect of viewing them in a negative light; I view them in a neutral light. 

Instead, I will talk about communities, of which there are many, good and bad, large and small. A child could either become some sort of saint after seeing how lovely this world is - a naive saint of course, but a saint nonetheless. On the other hand, they could become a mass murdering pessimist born to a loving family in an otherwise great environment - the exception of this environment being the internet. Thus, when looking at a terrible person's childhood in the future, it will be harder to pinpoint their inspiration, their first look at hatred and murder. They could live in a well-off neighborhood, be attractive and intelligent, have a nice family, not kill any small animals, and go on to murder a school full of kids. The internet, I believe, greatly skews one's perspective of people and the world. 

These secretive algorithms, I think, do not act on malice of course, but instead act to promote viewership and increased likes and numbers. I wonder if they'd believe in the saying, "Any publicity is good publicity," if they could believe in anything? And what gets a lot of views? Controversy, drama, the terrible side of people. Of course, the good side does do, but not as much, I believe. Thus, these terribly misguided opinions spewed off by cesspools of hatred and subjectivity are sent to the front page of every website - when every time you go online you see people debating whether or not stabbing the corpse of a child is wrong, does it not skew your perspective of normal? These people are a vocal minority, and most are liars, for whatever reason they have to lie. 

I am fairly certain there will be an increased number of seemingly random criminals, who kill despite good childhoods and lives. And of course other criminals, less serious, or more, depending on one's views.

Good night.