Tuesday, November 20, 2012

The Chinese 'Own' the 'Golden Rule': Whoever has the Most Gold, Makes the Rules

My comment on a page I 'like' on Facebook called "I Don't Like What Stephen Harper is Doing to Canada" in response to his post about the Justin Trudeau's endorsement of the Nexen/CNOOC deal being good for middle class Canadians over the long run:
Hm. I'm one of your biggest fans, "I don't like...", but humans of every nationality or religion tend to 'knee jerk' when it comes to rabidly 'protecting our tribe' (Canada, in this case). Scientists have recently proved it is built-in to our brain wiring, hence it's instinctual self-defence behaviour.
Another beautiful sunrise over Canada's Oil Sands
The reality is that macroeconomics rule the world. What the big-picture thinkers understand is that humans run on money, and the Chinese has a LOT of ours (we've been gorging on 'Made in China' for years). To get that money back (which the Chinese have been hoarding for years) we have to sell them something.
The way global corporations of every national origin in a 'free capitalist global economy' buy stuff these days is by purchasing the root of the profit, i.e. the SOURCE company, NOT just the goods on the open market. Canadian firms own mines around the planet and many manufacturing firms in China.
I oppose Harper's backroom deals that benefit mainly his 1% buddies and his media gagging, but blocking the Chinese (or any nationality) from investing in Canada is like closing our borders to trade. Even Burma/Myanmar is opening up in order to benefit its 1%, but by association, its 99%.
Time to be big-minded, not small-minded and knee-jerk like a poorly educated old fart Conservative from Canada's hinterland who's afraid of change and 'them dang foreigners'. All 3 of our national parties understand the macroeconomics. If you educate yourself, you'll see the subtle difference between opposing Harper's tactics and opposing investment in Canada.
The Chinese WILL dominate the world economically very soon, and rampant (irrational) nationalism MAY lead them to conquer the world militarily in the coming 50 years, but it is far more likely, knowing how clever (big picture) they are, that they will not waste their time, money and energy doing what they will do in the South China Sea and try to be the bully, instead they'll just control global trade and manipulate the world to their ends with money.
No amount of nationalism can stop our desire for money. The latter is going to bring us all under their domination and blocking this Nexen sale is just a minor distraction. Our REAL problem is that the global economy is based upon a betting pool (stock markets) that can be overtaken by 'the House' (the player with all the money). THAT is something to lose sleep over!
This from an old post of mine re: the latter point:
The 'stock market' is a gambling enterprise on a national and global level, pure and simple.  Some 'bets' are more stable than others, but none are guaranteed.  This enormously powerful gambling enterprise has been set up to allow the entire world's economy to be driven by it, allowing the relatively meagre wealth of non-players to be evaporated at the whim of the small group of players.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Petraeus Was a Remarkable Leader, and a Man. America Loses Again Due to "Knee-jerk Conservatism"

Here's what Stephanie Coontz had to say in a CNN article about recent extramarital affairs in the news:
"I believe the frequency of these sexual scandals reflects the fact that many men and women have still not fully incorporated into their daily emotional lives the new ideals about gender equity and mutuality that have emerged in the past 40 years." 
OK, so Stephanie is 'Director of Research at the Council on Contemporary Families' and so has a Conservative agenda to worry about, but what a load of unadulterated bullshit!  What we have to 'incorporate' is a European-style level of acceptance of human nature and smile and have a giggle when it shows up, then either forgive or move on to our next monogamous relationship and get on with the adventure that is life.
There's an antique and totally unhealthy notion that continues to persist in America today.  It's roots are historical, certainly, but for a society to evolve and improve, it has to learn from history, not cling to it.  Some 'traditions' are beneficial, and some are damaging.  It is up to people in positions like Stephanie's to challenge our human tendency to want to avoid change and cling to traditions.  Yes, she points to survey's that SHOUT that in America today:
"Tolerance for male adultery is certainly at a new low. "
But I think it's important to ask just what demographic is influencing this supposed 'intolerance' and  whether or not a survey that was done six years ago is really still relevant today outside of the 'New Republican Party' and it's enormous influence over what happens in Washington due to 'the new normal' and fueled by artificial, trumped-up outrage that is virtually identical to that of Muslim's being rounded up and employed to 'protest' a ridiculous little 'hate film' made by a nut-job.  What Amercians answer to a very 'loaded' survey question: "Do you agree or disagree that adultery is immoral." does NOT necessarily reflect what they'd be happy to forgive as a nation guided by big-picture Christian values of forgiveness and tolerance.  By definition adultery is an immoral act, so OF COURSE 88% would agree with the statement.

Rather than ask whether the value that General David Petraeus offers to America is worth far more than the momentary satisfaction some change-averse individuals get from the President sanctimoniously accepting his resignation, everyone just goes along with it.  Last time I checked, the vast majority of American golfers, of either sex, would be tickled pink to have a golf lesson from Tiger Woods.  The value that his expertise offers us has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fun he had with some women, despite being married at the time.

Just because several hundred years ago some folks from overseas, who happened to belong to very conservative Christian sect, set up camp on the shores of Native American's land, DOESN'T mean that today highly valuable people have to abandon their important jobs and no longer contribute to society because they've 'done what comes naturally' and fooled around.  Yes, there's a large group of wealthy (and therefore politically influencial), old folks who resist change in America, but 'thank God' that their grandkids are swiftly having a major influence on American policies (see: Obama Takes ALL The 'Swing' States!).

Petraeus's resignation, NOT his affair, is a huge loss to America and is evidence of some really disturbing 'societal mores' that the youth of America are going to reject in the coming decades (yes, they grew up on a diet of free, instantly available, high definition, hard-core porn -- think about what that has done to their view of their grandparents' morals).  What is accepted as today's 'majority opinion' is not going to be tomorrow's.  Here's my comment to Ms. Coontz's article in reply to a comment from a fellow reader who challenged her diehard feminist view:
Thank you, Hal 9000. Our species is programmed for one single thing: passing on our genes. A few thousand years of urban life have no effect on millions of years spent living in small nomadic tribes. This author says "As someone who has studied the evolution of love, sexuality, and marriage over the centuries...", then proves that she hasn't understood ANY of the fundamentals of the evolutionary roots of our behavior. We have over-populated the planet for one singular reason -- men of every age are instinctively and intractably driven to try to have sex with as many women of healthy childbearing age (which, looking at the volume of the release of ova, is between 18 and 28) as possible in their lives.

I lived through the age of feminism, when female scholars completely erroneously argued that ANY gender-specific behavior could be explained by nurture, not accepted as instinctively natural. Patently ridiculous. Evolutionary behaviorists now know how wrong that notion was, yet this author is going right back there, AND stating that she is one of their colleagues!

We stopped evolving the moment our technological skills rose to the point that were no longer subject to the selective pressure of the environment. Homo Sapiens Sapiens moved into a state of not 'punctuated equilibrium', but a state of 'ongoing equilibrium'. Our entire species is inter-mixing our genes genetically now on a global level -- there is no natural selective pressure anymore, and never will be until the disaster movies become real. Helicopter mom's who's kids have nut allergies are getting school boards to cut down oak trees to remove the risk of acorns to their little genetic copies!

No amount of societal/cultural pressure, through religion or more recently through other forms of social regulation, is going to stop women from wanting, 'genetically speaking', to be desired for nothing more than their 'hotness' (something that begins to diminish in their early 30's), then to lock-down a man to provide for them and their offspring until they're ready to leave the nest.  No cultural mores are ever going to stop men of every age from being driven to try to have sex with as many women of healthy childbearing age as they can, as long as they can still 'perform'.

Wag your finger and spout philosophically, Stephanie Coontz, but at the end of the day what evolutionary behaviorists know beyond any shadow of a doubt is that all the members of our species do what we do because life wants to propagate.  No amount of 'civilization' is going to change that. Besides, why should we?   Sex is fun and is some fooling around or broken relationships are ultimately inconsequential in the bigger scheme of things. 
(Breaking up over an extra-marital affair is EXACTLY like sending your dog to the pound because he/she had sex with the neighbor's dog -- that's just what dogs do.  Attempt to control your massive ego, forgive each other for being human, and carry on.  Recent studies have proven that women naturally gradually lose interest in sex in ongoing relationships, they can't do much about it, just as most men gradually lose testosterone.  Focus on the value of companionship, not your ego.  'Trust' is about your partner not wanting to leave you for someone new, NOT about whether or not he/she needed a bit of sexual variety for a while.)

The natural human state, viewed on a bell curve, is one of SERIAL MONOGAMY, with some rare couples mating for life and a few rare others being single and promiscuous (or not) for life. The 'new normal' that we all 'accept' of nuclear families living in single-family dwellings and attempting to 'stay married for the sake of the kids' is a VERY modern invention that only came about in the past few thousand years due to the invention of agriculture and animal husbandry. For millions of years children were raised by the tribe, NOT by helicopter parents, and their parents partnered with different people for varying periods of time.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Online Dating Success for Adults: It's HOW YOU USE IT!

My synopsis of what works, and doesn't with online dating for adults, in a follow-up comment I left on a CNN article about Online Dating.  One commenter, Valerie, cautioned women against the proliferation of predators (narcissistic-psychopathic personality disorder types) on Internet Dating sites.  I think it's the way you use the medium that puts you at risk:
I've blogged a lot about being a single adult over the past few years and I have to say that new media channels, which is all that online dating really is, ALWAYS go through the 'latest obsession' phase during which the people who are out to take advantage LEAP on the opportunity of so many neophytes being out there.  My 80 yr old parents have finally become tech-saavy and cautious enough to not be dupped (most of the time).  I was in a relationship with an Aspergers/BPD woman for many years who I met face-to-face and it took me years to figure out what her issues were (and I'm a specialist in human nature!), so while there are risks in meeting people online OR offline, figuring out others is always a challenge for all of us. 
What is gradually being figured out with Internet dating is what it's real value is.  For most adults who are past the bar-scene stage (for the price of a few drinks we got exposure to hundreds of available members of our gender-preference every single night and our only REAL criteria to end up going steady was "Hot enough and willing to date me?"), our access to other adult singles OFFline is almost nil.  We don't attend places of worship regularly and our 'network' no longer has that many single adults in it.  Online dating offers us exposure to hundreds of singles who we would never, ever meet otherwise.  Are some nuts?  Sure, and every local OFFline singles club/event you attend will have the same percentage of oddballs in attendance, they are just way easier to spot in person. 

And there's the key: in person.  Online dating's 'marketing promise' makes it highly addictive: sit at home in your PJs with a glass of wine and 'shop' for your ideal mate!  We all plunge in and get hooked to the medium, even though it works in a totally opposing manner to human nature (we're designed to be social, visual-first creatures who meet each other by first seeing each other across a crowd).  Key to using online effectively is treating it no differently than you would the local newspaper's singles ads: when you have some time to go out and meet people, check who's on offer and IMMEDIATELY go out and have a drink.  (Not a coffee!  Caffeine just makes us hyper-critical.  Just don't get smashed or you'll end up waking up next to him thinking "Not again!"  ;-) 

DO NOT OVER-ANALYZE the guys' profiles and texts, ladies!  (Your 'instincts' don't work all that well face-to-face, as your past relationships prove -- they don't work AT ALL over the Internet or on lines of words strung together!)

And the above advice means LOCAL GUYS ONLY.  The men who are willing to travel to meet you are highly suspect, very likely married and CERTAINLY only out for sex (which you might be OK with...).  If you find random men at a conference or at the grocery store occasionally very intriguing, then go out for lots of 'meet and greet' dates with guys who's photos seem recent and attractive to you.  At our age, it becomes a numbers game because our mature criteria list is much more specific than in our 20's and early 30's.  I have a lot more adult dating insights in the sidebar on my Just One Cynic's Opinion blog is you're curious about a former ad man's take on the subject. 

Online dating can work, and well, just don't get addicted to it, treat it like an opportunity to do serial 'speed dating' and you just might meet a good match (AND you'll get out more, which inevitably leads to meeting more people).
Note to my readers, with the insights I have today, versus some years ago, into how the Internet can work for us in terms of defining who we are and what we do in life, I'll be 'migrating' my several blogs into one over the coming weeks.  Hope you'll follow me there!  (More to come...)


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...