Tuesday, November 18, 2008

a cocktail of drugs

with the recent news in, that a new vaccine for skin cancer has been developed, i have begun wondering if all these amazing feats of medical science are really worth it. there are things to "cure" or "prevent" almost anything these days. 

but why do people seem to worship these drugs and hail them as "miracle cures"? why do people not take preventative precautions, such as waring a hat in the sun to avoid skin cancer, instead of always relying on these "wonder drugs" right before they die?

such questions remind me of the sad truth that we are a society who values convenience and speed, who don't take precautions beforehand. this can apply to many situations such as simple as fast food restaurants. people don't have to cook, they can just eat and leave the waste on the table, floor, or bin (if they are nice). they don't think that eating a grease-ball burger everyday may cause them to get diabetes, obese and give them poor self esteem. 

i guess people just think these days you can take a pill and fix everything, i mean, they have had experience with pills before, such as paracetamol which almost immediately "cures" a headache. people now think you can take a pill to help you lose weight, and it will do it for you, even though the person probably wont exercise any more, or eat any less, which is what is needed for the pill to work.

it makes me wonder how, for hundreds of years, we have never really had the need for all these drugs. although, for hundreds of years, the human race didn't have the same problems. i mean, when have you heard of some ancient european (apart from royalty) becoming obesely fat and dying from diabetes. 

these amazing "wonder drugs" have ensured that we live longer, to pollute the earth even more. so where does natural selection come into it? remember those super bugs everyone is so scared of these days? they have used natural selection to combat antibiotics and have gone out, ready to infect the world, ensuring that natural selection goes on as it should do.

so how many of these drugs will cause super bugs, super cancer, super diabetes to form? how long will we survive on all these new and improved drugs that have been created to fend off some very preventable diseases? the lifestyle of today is very much driven by consumer's and convenience, so people expect we shall last off these drugs until THEY die. then they don't care. 

i think it is great, overall, that people have such powerful minds to create such drugs. i could not get my head around such science and i respect them with the highest dignity for attempting to save our population from the demise they so utterly deserve for being such a lazy society, driven by convenience, consumerism and self want. but people should realize that a pill or a vaccine is not going to suddenly make you better.

and people should also realize that natural selection is going to come into play eventually, get around the vaccines and cures and kill even more people. 

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Australia's mandatory internet filtering

being an Australian citizen, i am proud of Australian culture and our ability to say, think and see things as each of us individuals (who are not influenced by mass media) wish to. but at the moment, that freedom is now being jeopardized, with the simple blocking of 10,000+ internet websites to the Australian people that the government deems "inappropriate".

so, there are a couple of major problems with this proposal. first i will start with the ethical ones, the ones that matter.

as a "democratic" society, we are almost ensured with freedom of speech, freedom to read what we want, freedom to view porn, freedom to do anything almost.

"The [filter] will specifically test filtering against the ACMA blacklist of prohibited content, which is mostly child pornography, as well as filtering of other unwanted content," Senator Conroy told Parliament.

other unwanted content?? that makes me want to laugh with absurdity as well as fear for my freedom for viewing materials that i wish to. 

child pornography blocking, to me, is a great thing. the last thing we need around here is more opportunities for pedophiles to feed their fetish, but the filtering system does not block things such as peer to peer file sharing which is a main transporter for child pornography. it also does not block proxy sites in other countries that can be used to avoid the whole filter altogether. and i am more then sure that they are not going to care about a few cases of people at home, who want to watch their legitimate porn or read about support for some random political group whom to government deems "unwanted content", so what happens if they just think that a pedophile swapping images is an innocent person at home, just swapping some illegal music?

there are some ISP servers who are more then happy to take aboard the filtering service though. Michael Malone, Director of Australia's largest ISP, "iiNet", is taking on board this filtering system, only to show the government "How stupid it is". Since the government is not listening to expert advice, public opinion or the industry, "iiNet" is hopping to deliver some "hard numbers" which the Rudd government likes to base their policies on these days. they are going to publicize every child who can get through the system, they are going to tell everyone about every legitimate site that will be blocked.

so what will happen to all the freedom that we, as a "democracy" that everyone loves so dearly, have almost been guaranteed? what will happen to people who voice their opinions like i do? will i be blocked from the internet, a violation of my rights to communicate with the world? will rogue journalists be blocked from voicing their opinions about international issues, wherever they may be in the vast world? we are simply turning into state controlled in the same way countries such as China and north Korea are controlled. this is what we get for voting in a leftie into government, who at first, we thought was going to do things FOR the Australian people.

also, with the mandatory filtering, there is another problem, for people who are for and against the filtering service. internet speeds could decline up to 84% and prices for internet service rise sharply. hmm.... paying more for poor, slow, filtered internet. 

i wonder how the general populous of Australia will think of that in a time where we are attempting to save money in a world in financial crisis. 

Friday, November 14, 2008

euthanasia, the good, the bad, and the ugly

after reading many sites to do with euthanasia, for and against, i would have to say, i am for it. BUT however, there are many things wrong with arguments from both sides of the debate.

first, to define euthanasia. most people see it as what it is: assisted suicide. that is, essentially, what it is. it is done for the benefit of the patient, the family and (as sad as it may seem) the health care system. it is done because the patient is in excruciating pain and wish's to die, but does not have the means to do it themselves.

but as i said before, several of the arguments for and against just befuddle me. 

people who are against euthanasia do have some good reasons for their arguments, but one of them that does not make ANY sense to me is the value of life. how valuable is life if you are in constant pain?? it should not be about quantity of life, but quality. it should not be for any religious reasons. the god i know and love would accept this. 

to not let someone have their own choice over life and death and to have their choices dictated to them by political and religious leaders is against everything we are taught to believe in, in our "democratic" society. you see the people and the state they are in. they are depressed because some can barely feed themselves, some cant move without the slightest bit of pain, some cant clean themselves without help. if someone kept their pets in this condition, then the RSPCA would charge them for assault. 

the people against euthanasia for pain related reasons sometimes just say "take more painkillers". fairly blatant. what about people who are paralyzed? you cant take any damn medication for that can you?

but some of the arguments for euthanasia also do not make entire sense to me. they have used the words "terminal illness" as an example for euthanasia. but people with terminal diseases/poisonings/injuries can live for quite a while. no one can predict what time they may die. they have had to use many other names for it, all of which can be interpreted in many different ways. they have to define their ideas and names with more accuracy. 

but when weighing up the arguments, believe me, it is easy to see it is almost best (but not the easiest decision to make) to opt for euthanasia for a loved one. personally.... i would HATE to make the decision, but i respect anyone who does have to make the decision and opts for euthanasia. 

so to all political leaders, religious leaders and "ethicists", stop dictating peoples choices to them. everyone should have a right to say yes or no, based on THEIR OWN BELIEVES AND MORALS.

the american invasion of Iraq in 2003

so, as the world is so often reminded, america is still fighting off an unknown enemy in Iraq. we are also reminded that there are several reasons, confirmed and unconfirmed, of why america, and many allied nations, such as Australia and the UK, are in Iraq.

so, now it seems, everyone has their own reason to why the invasion of Iraq occurred. it is maintained by governments the world over that it is to eradicate the taliban who where driven out of Afghanistan by western forces. it is also maintained that they wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, whom did not follow the orders from the US about oil and whom was such an evil dictator. 

so, america hates the terrorists, who "performed" the 11th of September terrorist attacks on 3 world trade centers and the pentagon in 2001. it seems that the entire invasion was based on "terrorist" attacks on america, where the explanations about the attacks where totally unfounded. only one of many of these examples is that the attacks on the pentagon where meant to be by a plane. so why was there minimal damage to the pentagon itself? why is there only a small hole in the wall and why are there no remains of the plane itself? it was claimed that it disintegrated by the aviation fuel, which is physical impossible considering the explosion did not last the 2 hours it would have had to, to disintegrate the plane, not including the engines. all footage of the attack was confiscated and only 5 frames where released to the public. and from these frames, no plane is visible. 

if they have nothing to hide, then why don't they just show the damn footage?

and they want to get rid of dictators? so far, they have rid the world of Saddam Hussein, who was the only one who could keep his country in order, despite his biological weapon attacks on his OWN people. ever since he was pushed out of power, Iraq has fallen into chaos. they have not been able to keep a leader and HAVE to rely now on western military help and aid.
but what about all the other dictators? how about Robert Magabe? he is still in power, yet he has displaced half of his own people, killing hundreds of thousands in the process. he has caused inflation to rise to the utterly ridiculous height of 231,000,000%. why are they not in there "stabilizing the situation"?

then there is the idea that america is in Iraq to secure oil. it seems to be the idea that keeps the masses in silent agreement to the invasion, but still marginally opposed to it. it gives us a reason to hate it, but to keep our dependance on oil, an easy resource to use, but not retrieve. its the thing that prevents us from finding alternative energy sources.


and now, the only reason that i support the Iraq invasion, is so that the situation can be mended and Iraq is able to handle things on its own. now that they have had to become dependent on the allied military presence, it will take a while to wean them off it. 

but no. the western world needs oil, don't they?

so.... what do you expect to read here?

well, from the title of my blog, it is easy to guess the general idea of why i am writing my thought and opinions, to be discussed with others. i want to ensure that people think about the things they see on T.V, not just mindlessly agree with it. people should always get a second opinion, if it be from a less biased news source or someone who is an expert on the matter. the problem is, people value convenience too much. 

so i challenge people to think and feel their OWN ideas about what happens in this world, from euthanasia to the invasion of Iraq. from religious differences to global warming. the things that make humanity what it is.

i'm not sure if anyone reads this, and as long as one person does, and thinks about their already cemented ideas about a certain thing, and realizes that there are other ways to think about things, then my goal has been reached. i just hope to purvey these ideas to a broader audience then just one person though.

you don't need a crowd to change the world. you need one person who can lead them