Our Inability To Destroy (Social Essay)

Chris Myrski

This is an essay about contemporary consumer society, that creates artificial things but /is unable to destroy them/ later. The narration is philosophical & unorthodox, reducing all to the title.


Chris Myrski. Our Inability To Destroy (Social Essay). 2011




The works of Chris Myrski
    Our Inability To Destroy (Social Essay)    

© Chris MYRSKI, 2011








     Abstract:


     This is an essay about our contemporary consumer society, that creates all kinds of artificial things but then throws them without making necessary efforts to destroy them properly. It begins with some philosophical reflections about the world in which we live (but philosophical ideas and conclusions pervade also the left part of the material), and then observes certain concrete cases of inability to dissolve objects or ideas which have fulfilled their part (such like the: revolutions and wars, outdated moral norms in the society, obsolescence of the things, garbage of various kind, and other matters), and proposes during the review also some directions in which we should work. Because this is a later work of the author many things are only mentioned without proper justification, so that if some readers find the material very informative they have two ways of action: either to refuse to read it further, or to look for some other of my works for explanations. As to the specific topic, then from the time of technical revolution, a moment which is initiated roughly with the Manifesto of Karl Marks, we are moving pretty strong away from the nature, without having prepared in some way our organisms for this, what leads to many cataclysms, but also to unsolved tendencies for pollution with garbage in whatever areas, just because of breaking the natural cycles, what ultimately leads again to cataclysms. At the end is placed traditional poetical Appendix in English.















      







OUR

INABILITY

TO DESTROY




Chris MYRSKI, 2011













     Abstract:


     This is an essay about our contemporary consumer society, that creates all kinds of artificial things but then throws them without making necessary efforts to destroy them properly. It begins with some philosophical reflections about the world in which we live (but philosophical ideas and conclusions pervade also the left part of the material), and then observes certain concrete cases of inability to dissolve objects or ideas which have fulfilled their part (such like the: revolutions and wars, outdated moral norms in the society, obsolescence of the things, garbage of various kind, and other matters), and proposes during the review also some directions in which we should work. Because this is a later work of the author many things are only mentioned without proper justification, so that if some readers find the material very informative they have two ways of action: either to refuse to read it further, or to look for some other of my works for explanations. As to the specific topic, then from the time of technical revolution, a moment which is initiated roughly with the Manifesto of Karl Marks, we are moving pretty strong away from the nature, without having prepared in some way our organisms for this, what leads to many cataclysms, but also to unsolved tendencies for pollution with garbage in whatever areas, just because of breaking the natural cycles, what ultimately leads again to cataclysms. At the end is placed traditional poetical Appendix in English.











0. Preliminary remarks



     In the old Buddhists books is stated that our world is something thrice "not", namely: in it nothing is perfect (what in many cases is the same as not finished — in Slavonic languages, say in Russian, there is sovershenniy-perfect, and svershit-to-finish, but there Latin "perfect" means both, faultless and finished), nothing is permanent, and nothing is isolated (or independent of the other things), what surely is much more serious approach to the matters than by Christian Creation (but then that is why earlier has existed theosophy, i.e. from one side the God-Theos, but from another side also philosophy and view to the world). From Ancient Greece, in turn, to us have come two main slogans or life rules: this to search the moderation in everything (even in the moderation, I should add), with the variety "Hurry up slowly", known largely through the Latin language), as well as the slogan that "Everything flows, everything changes" (what coincides with the inconstancy in the Buddhism). Besides, the thesis about the dialectical link of the things — I would have rather said about the "dialactic" (from the lactans or lactones, milk filaments), or "diaelastique" (as a ball hanged on some, at least two, elastic cords — this is something on what is based the imperfection and incessant dynamics, and the connection, as also Ancient Greek's view about the moderation, i.e. the looking for a middle point. Well, naturally, for to have dynamics and movement must be added also cycle or circle (which, with adding of one more dimension, turns to spiral or solenoid), i.e. there has to be always performed some returning to certain old state (with eventual modifications or small differences). And these are, roughly speaking, the main ancient wisdoms, but we, the people from the entire globe, stubbornly refuse to add them to our basic rules for behavior and worldview, we are ready to believe in whatever religious or not fabrications and fables, but not in the common links between the things and in the "great" cycle, or in the "great" middle point (these medi /metha things, that are nice, I would have added, like ... honey, because this root is very ancient, it is related with the mead, which beverage was fabricated during millenniums in various parts of the world).

     And because we don't want to search for moderation, and do not think at all to close the cycle — for we want just to reach the top, and after us, I don't know, maybe deluge or whatever? —, then it happens so that ... ha, ha, well, it turns out that we, still, do what must be done, close the cycle, moderate ourselves as much as we can, only in the time! And how this happens, ah? Well, very easy: one day so, another day otherwise; two months, for example, we gorge ourselves, and then 40 days we fast; or for 5 years we have democracy, and then follow 10 years of tyranny (in Ancient Greece, where the dictators were called Tyrants); or 3 years (or even 30) we wage war, and then 20 years (exactly as is needed for the new generation to grow) live in peaceful conditions; or — nowadays — we long time have such moral norms that one self-respecting woman can't show even her face on the street, and then, after some 20 years, she may show even her, sorry, pudenda by the Internet, said as an example; or the institution of marriage is so sacred that only the Roman Pope can warrant dissolution of marriage (if one can get to him and have enough money for bribe, which is not called so), and thereafter one marriage can't endure five years on an average; and similar examples.

     Well, somebody will say, hence if turns that we, still, can do what we must do, even not being very wise. Yeah, this is so, but at what price? At the cost of needless expense of "biological material". But all these were generalities, on which we will base here and there (even implicitly) our explanations in the processing of this material, so that they were necessary, but my goal in this case is to reach to our inability to destroy various things, to dissolve and remove them, because this is the cycle, having made something to destroy it later, for to make it again, as, for example, grows the corn (and if we leave it in the field, then it will grow not in such abundance later). Not that we don't try to crash, or that we don't want to do this, on the contrary, the dear God (or the nature — as you like it more) has made enough efforts to put the instinct for destruction very deep in us (as also in the animals), because this is what common linkage of the things means, each thing carries in itself also its negation, in some way. So that we "die" to crash, especially the children, by the simple reason that for them this is creation, i.e. they do in this way most of all "work", or raise big noise, produce the biggest effect with their actions exactly when they throw some plaything or just break something. But also the elderly people, who now, but also in the ancient times, like most of all (and have liked, and will like in the future, that's for sure) the actions. This is clear, but if we are not capable to destroy some given thing properly, then the actions happen in reality, the built by us is ruined, the people kill one another, and we simply pay higher prices (when our brains are not much, and this as collective intelligence, not by one single person). For this reason I will try now to show some basic, or at least actual in the moment, situations where we don't destroy the things rightly, and will mark on the way (I can't be precise in the needed extent, even if I want, in such global problems) some of the possible directions for suitable reacting.

     Not that I believe much that the world will listen to me, but if I don't share what I have to with it then it, sure thing, will not be in position to listen to me, right? But I don't give much credence to this also because for my 60 years I have come to the conclusion that the world must not become very clever — as it also does not want to — because the life is more easier to live the less you understand it! For this reason the most happy ones are the young, especially the children, and the wisdom is rather for consolation of the old (though this is, as is said, "from another opera"). In this spirit is also the statement (of Spinoza, I think) that one feels free only because is conscious of his actions, but not of the causes that force them. Similarly, there is one ancient Hindu poem "Bhagavad Gita", where god Krishna, who is a variation (i.e. incarnation) of Vishnu (who, in my view, is in his turn the Varshitel-"Doer", in Bulgarian, so to say the "maintenance" of the created by Brahma world, where the main destruction is performed by the god Shiva, who often, hmm, ... shibaet-hits us on the head with some cudgel, I'll tell you — or take then your verb to shiver —, maybe with the help of the beautiful kalna-muddy, in Slavonic, goddess Kali, of the underworld). So in this poem the primary moral (the advice of Krishna) is the following: each has to act according to what is put in him, respectively, the people are to kill themselves, if this is so needed. What is right, but not exactly, because in that times the people were much weaker than nowadays, when one single person can quite easily blow up a nuclear bomb, and even carry it in the rucksack; or some teenager can buy himself an automatic pistol and kill as much people as he succeeds from his class in school, beginning with the teacher, and, eventually, ending with himself (what, though, will not return the life of the killed). So that the stupidity is necessary for the world, it is sacred, as the intelligent people have understood from times immemorial (because, for one thing, the genius and the simpleton are very much alike, by this that both of them are not entirely normal, i.e. not like the others, and for another thing, the simplicity is indestructible, and if so then it is better to comply with it), but the more intelligent people must also do what they can (because it is in their "karma", isn't it?), and then the masses can take this in consideration, if they want, or not take it. Well, such is the situation, who wants let him read further, and to whom this moralizing is boring enough let him watch his video and get loose from that clever man, who is ready always to teach (because to him only the upper head stays properly, ah?).



1. The revolutions and wars



     The revolution, or the overturning, revolting of the things, is an obvious example for tough or cruel closing of the cycle. If it was closed in milder way then many victims could have been avoided, what is well known to the governing people, and they, really, very often close the cycle smoothly. So for example, in many countries the slavery, or the serfdom, or the dependence of some colonies, has happened with decrees of monarchs, i.e. from above, not from below. But this has never happened before arising of some disorders and rebellions, and before it has become clear that, if there will not be allowed to the masses this, what they want, then, as we said above, this must be again allowed them, but after new disorders, fights and bloodshed. The now classical example for gentle and smooth destruction gives us the "Great Gorbi", who succeeded so smoothly and without flowing of any blood to bring the communism down, so that he deserves every honours and prizes, but there are not much people who have grasped this, because his party colleagues, most probably, have spat at him for betraying the communism, and his adversaries have spat on him for this, that he wanted again the communists to have ruling hand over the country. Be it as it may, I deal with this question in a whole book, so that let me not digress more from the point, but I can give you also another example for "gentle" dividing — this of former Czechoslovakia in Czech and Slovak Republics, where all was decided in advance, and starting on a good day, from the New Year.

     So that the revolutions and wars, at least the civil ones, can definitely be avoided — and in the contemporary economical crisis we have a good example for proper (well, in certain limits, of course) avoiding of world wars (at the expense of local ones, with the Arabs, with not entirely white people, so to say), because the crisis in 1928, step by step, has resulted in coming of the "hit" Hitler to power, and then to the Second World War. Hence, when we want, we can, but then why do we not want in time, earlier, before the bloodshed? Well, very simple, because it is very difficult to establish how much earlier must be reacted (for the people are always dissatisfied by something, and if everything is allowed to them then in the society will reign anarchy — as it also happens nowadays in some areas). In other words, the sufferers must first alone demand this, what they require, and the governing authorities must in their turn decide whether to give it to them or not. So that revolutions, at least "velvet" ones, or maturing of revolutionary conditions, have always existed, and will exist always.

     And the wars? Well, this topic the author has also considered, but even if he has not done this, it is clear that always exist peaceful ways for settling of the disputes, as long as the people want such solutions. Because with the wars there are several moments. First (but not necessarily on the first place, ah?) there are economical reasons, which can, and must, be decided with economical means (as we now, little by little, also try, with the help of international capitals, i.e. which country or company invests more in a given weaker country, it will rule, de facto, certain part of this country); in this sense is useful to share with you my linguistic researches, which lead to the conclusion that already the Romans (if not other folks before them) have regarded the finances as ... well, as fine thing, of course, as something ethereal, delicate, thinned as the end (fin /fine in the Roman languages), or as fin of a fish (to use now the English). Then there are also psychological reasons, this that the people just want to fight, they like the power and the strong, such persons are purely dear to them — what is easy to be seen in the Slavonic languages where mil /miliy means "dear", but also on the West, because here are all the militarists and military forces, and the root 'mil-' is very old, this is the smacking sound 'ml' of relish, from here is the Teutonic Milch-milk and your mild (weather or not) and other thing, and in Arabic, too, 'mleh' meant nice, good. And at last (but not at all at the least place) is the desire to destroy, desire not only from the part of the humans but also of the situation (and, in this case, the desire is in quotes), because when many buildings and property are destroyed this gives work to the people, they organize themselves for some time, avoid at least for the moment the wars — this is one naive or also pulse mode of working, but between the humans the things are performed exactly in this way (when we can't find the needed middle point, nor to destroy what is necessary in the proper way).

     You try now to imagine such situation in which everything, at least from the times of ancient Romans, till the present moment is preserved, and is known even where each of the deceased have left his or her bones in the earth. Well, if so then we should have built out skyscrapers, maybe, only above 3,000 meters, or on the bottom of the seas, and wherever we went we would have treaded on someone's remains, even being in the nature. So that, due to the mutual connection of the things, it turns that when the country A destroys something in the country B, then it, up to certain extent, helps it (as also when the wolves eat the hares it turns that in this way they better the breed of hares — or that when we kill our, hmm, cockroaches at home, or pester them with various chemicals, we just force them to become more resistant, what, in all appearance, is really so). In this sense, even if we succeed to solve the above-mentioned aspects of the wars, we should seriously engage ourselves also with a periodical and planned destruction of our own "assets", so to say, because this is the way in which the economical crises arise, because we continue by inertia to create something, but it has long ago come the time to stop this and even to destroy it, to reorient us to something else, or simply to change something, for otherwise our live becomes dull and we begin to quarrel and fight only because we are bored and have nothing to fight for! And don't think, please, that this is meaningless philosophizing, because there is one ancient Chinese proverb, which we think is a blessing, good wish, but which is known as the "Curse of the Chinese", and it states: "May you live in interesting times!" Well, our times, even from the very beginning of the 21st century, are, really, very interesting, a crazy action.



2. The moral norms



     My simple definition of the moral is the following: this is set of rules intended to unite the people in the space and the time. Wherein the accent is rather on the time, i.e. between the past, through the present, and to the future, between old and young, between the generations, for in the space we somehow can deal using the right of the stronger (as by the animals). (In the Latin the word for moral is mores, and also in plural, and in my view in it is hidden the ... murmuring of the sea, or of that who teaches, but maybe the mare-sea is simply symbol of the multitude — compare with your "more" — and this means many things, norms, that must be respected.) I personally have the feeling that the young people, those between 20 and 30, and even to 40, have the feeling (this time they), that the moral is just empty babble of the "over-matured", but this is not so and without a moral we can't do (because if we could do, then it would have not existed, right?). I can't deny that they have some reasons for such feeling, because nowadays are breaking too many moral norms, but they are breaking in order to give rise to something new, not to reject the moral at all, let us make this small difference! They are breaking also because by the humans, well, there is something wrong, in our genes, because when people have good moral and stick to it, they stick so rigorously to it that begin to kill one another in the name of it, what expressed in such extent shows, definitely, that they don't have the needed moral. So that now, let us try the contrary, let us live without any moral (because surely all have heard the saying that the ways to hell are strewn with good intentions), and let us see whether this will not turn to be good (wanting the worse). In certain extent this is true, but firstly up to a certain measure, moderately, not a total rejection; and secondly: when we refuse some social norm we must have before this some other (alternative) ready, to which to head, if we don't want to end up "between two chairs and on the floor" (as we, the Bulgarians, ended from the moment when we stepped on the way to the democracy, but as far as now the whole world became confused in the last 10 years or so, then we don't bulge too much before the other nations).

     These moral norms, however, are not so much, they usually can be counted on our fingers (the Ten Commandments in the Christianity, for example), and, more than this, they are intuitively clear to the people, as it is also clear why they should not be violated — because the things often reverse and how we have behaved to the others, in such way later they return it to us (so that if we correctly reflect the world around, and if it does not contradict to itself fairly often, then we should not have special problems). If it is so, when one decides to ponder about, it must be clear also why (most frequently) they are violated — well, mainly, so to say, out of braggery, i.e. because we hope to pass between the drops and in this way to soar high in our own eyes as very cunning, but also for to smear more on our "bread" than the others. I have looked at these things in other of my works, but here out topic is the bad destruction or rejection of these norms when they grow old (because everything sometime gets old, as far as there is nothing perfect, nothing constant, and nothing isolated, as I have already mentioned). So that when we destroy something our first job should have been to asks us the question: why till now this was not so, i.e. what exactly has changed, because it is naive to think (though many people think precisely so) that when we destroy something then it is at all unnecessary, erroneous, and, in two words, the folks before us were very big morons, what is not so — the people are just the same morons, before, now, and in the future! But instead of asking ourselves these natural and sensible questions we simply "die" to deal precipitously and destroy totally, without closing properly the cycle, and so react not only the uneducated masses, no, so behave also the governing officials at highest state's level, forgetting about our connections with the previous generations.

     So that many denied nowadays things were entirely justified at their time and under the actual conditions. For example: the slavery system earlier was the best possible solution, better than the tribal system (i.e. with better exploitation in it), and when the Americans much later decided to fight for to keep the slavery they have had their grounds and there the slaves have fought for preserving of the slavery, and the decisive fight at the end was within a hairbreadth of the reverse result; or the communism for its time and place was entirely necessary (because the capitalism then was still very rough and green and the great powers, instead of taking joint decisions, have preferred to kill one another), and, something more, this order has fulfilled one fundamental task, it has made the capitalism afterward (with its warning precedent) significantly better. Or to take the democracy and the centralized ruling (monarchy, dictatorship, Sultan state or even governed by Christian Church state): if the democracy was so much good then at least we, in Bulgaria, as immediate neighbours of the Greeks, but also they alone, would have had 25 centuries now only democracy, but it does not happen so, because the latter has not less drawbacks than the centralized ruling (but these questions, too, are profoundly discussed by the author on other places, so that let us not diverge from the point). Or also the emancipation: if one comes to think about then it is more than clear, even to the women, that they are more labile than the men, more emotional, not so logical, and so on, and it is better if the man rules in the families (because someone must stay at the top, by two persons the democratic voting simply does not work); and, on the other hand, the families have been for millenniums obvious necessity for bringing up of the posterity (there were not child allowances then, nor open to all education, nor relieving the housework appliances, and so on), so that everything has stood stable on its places.

     If we ask ourselves why earlier have existed more restrictive moral norms than now — at the end of the civilization, surely (but let us not digress) — it is clear that we should be in better position to moderate the things so, and will try to act more logically. Because, let us take the sex in focus: if we succeed somehow (as the French for now more than a pair of centuries) to make difference between family and sex, then there are no problems, but we, as a mass, can't behave so, and for that reason it was necessary to prohibit the extramarital sex; and also, obviously, there was not in those times this population boom that we encounter now, so that if, instead of to engage ourselves with birth and rearing of the offspring, we practice sex from our first youth and till old age, then all will gain something from this, and that is why now the things stay how they are, but not because it is moral for everybody to copulate with whoever he /she wants, it isn't moral, but we simply overlook this, because now it is preferable so. Or also the related with this question about the prostitution: naturally that it isn't moral to exist loose women, what can be seen by this that nobody would like for his (or her) daughter to become "companion", but when this is the first woman profession and one can win good from it, so it is assumed now that it is better if the state wins, than the organized crime, right?

     And in order not to allow to some of the readers to say that we only criticize, here are also some, very broadly formulated, propositions about the raised questions, i.e. how more reasonably and rightly to crush the old norms. For example by the democracy (skipping explanations of whole books) the things can be significantly bettered if we succeed correctly to divide the ruling persons in three categories: tactical body, i.e. the immediate managers, professionals, businessmen, people of public relations, economists, and so on (if we succeed to formulate some more or less good criteria for the governing, because it to a big extent is an art), which must be elected by some competent commissions or collegia (or in the worst case, and in the beginning, by the parties); then strategic body or representative sample of the people, chosen by some arbitrary choice between the whole population (and not only from the best, who can later turn out to be even the worst), as assessors, arbiters; and in addition to this also some moral or moralizing body, or elders, sages, consisting of people chosen democratically, as much as from the top, also from the low ranks, and in several iterations (in order to be allowed to choose from the bottom), people to whom we trust, to teach us what is good and what bad, but who do not govern.

     Then by the emancipation must be made first of all difference between the society, where the woman, naturally, must have equal rights with the man — but with this substantial remark that these equal rights may only ... prove her inequality with the man, her peculiarities as individual —, and the family or reproductive unit (because this can be performed also without families). The families — when it become pretty clear now that they can not exist "until the death takes them apart" — must be concluded, if this will be at all done, only for specified period (by default of 5 years), after what each of the parts has the right to cease the family, or to ask for changing of the period of prolongation (say, with another 3 years). In addition to this before concluding of the contract of marriage or forming of the reproductive unit the parts must be in clear about the procedure of dividing (regularly by personal control of the property) of the things, but above all of the children, where each child by his or her birth must be inscribed to one of the parents, say, by default the boys to the father, and the girls to the mother, if it goes about first child for both of the parents, and else to that of them who has not yet a child; more than a child to the parent, as a rule, should not be allowed, and must be related with many, mostly financial, difficulties for the parent. In this way all questions can be decided and updated (with a bit mode details, explained on other place).

     And about the prostitution I also have reasonable proposition, so that it, on one hand, continues to exist, but, on the other hand, becomes moral! How is it possible? Well, very easy, placing it under medical and other supervision and it is performed not for material (at least not big) gain. Here is one such possible variant as draft proposition. There are created "Samaritan societies for sexual services" with persons from both sexes (something like legal call girls /boys), where the employees work for the average in the moment and in the country salary, plus free food, clothes, medical care, and retirement under first category. So that, when one youngster feels that by him it not only stays during the whole time but he also wants to help the women (for this is a question of vocation, right?), then he applies there, and if the appropriate council approves him, then he is nominated for a trial period, and later also on a term contract (but not longer than 3 years, and even better for an year). Similarly also with the girls. When these people get bored — because this isn't sex with desired partner but a kind of beneficence — each one can leave the job, or change the status to "on call" (by preset norms of payment). May be received only small presents (say, worth up to 2 minimal daily salaries) for seance, but not more than 5 (or 10) such salaries per whole month; the clients, for their part, pay equal and not very high tax. There are no problems if someone wants to keep a mistress (or the reverse, a lover), he needs only to pay her salary and all insurances. And don't think, please, that this is something unheard of, some fantastic tales, because in some religions have existed sexual compulsions on certain holidays for unmarried individuals.



3. The obsolescence of the things



     From the time of the mentioned technical revolution we have begun to throw many things in the garbage, not wearing them enough. It is clear that in this way new working places are opened, but the work of these people is entirely unnecessary, it satisfies whims, if we admit it frankly. Because if a given commodity, that can be used 10 years without major repairs, and with such about 15, and even 20 years, is used only 2-3 years, then this means that, by an average duration of the human life of 70 years, just when the children come in their teens and we have to send them ... to gas chambers, or something in that spirit! Well, the goods are not humans, but they also have their "soul", as the old people say, one becomes used to them, they are not entirely soulless things for him (or at least it was so earlier), and it is also wicked to throw away good things, so that our consumer society is simply a society of the throwing away, what, however one looks at it, isn't a good thing. And I'll tell you also the following: as one treats his things, so he treats the nature around, and the people, too, if he is a "good owner" to the one thing, he is good also to the other!

     But well, let it be so, this was only the moral aspect, which undeniably is not good, but at least is not so bad for the nature, where throwing of artificial things on the garbage, of things taken out of the natural cycle (-s), obviously harms the nature, and, ultimately, also us (because she — the Nature must be feminine, she gives birth, creates things — will succeed somehow to cope with the situation without the people and our civilization, as she/it has done this for millions of years). Generally speaking, under the capitalism very many things are thrown away, because there are various unnecessary developed cycles, either of shortage, either of surplus, but it is one thing to throw away agricultural production, or to pour milk in the rivers, and it is something different to heap somewhere rusting old cars, or washing machines, refrigerators, et cetera. As long as the world is divided into rich and poor countries, as it is nowadays, then this is not so bad, such like Bulgaria take all redundant but useful goods as second hand and are even glad, but all this is so for the moment and the tendency is to some equalization, first in the framework of communities (U.S., European Union, CIS with Russia, Arab countries, etc.), and then also in the whole world, because if one community is not closed but open to the others around it, if maintains contacts and trade relations — well, this is like the communicating vessels, in them soon everything is leveled. Poor and wealthy people will still exist for a long time, until the capitalism exists, but the countries will equalize themselves not later than the middle of the 21st century (with the possible exception of some very unfavorable climatic areas). So that what are we to do later, i.e. what are we to do now?

     Well, I have some propositions, but first of all, I think, has to be legalized (and get used to it) some notion for service live of each durable commodity. There is nothing difficult in this, because it is clear, roughly, how long it will endure, just that now this must be required from the company-producer, in accordance with all needed normatives, where there must exist also the corresponding control organs (for not to begin someone to offer, say, refrigerators with service life of 6 months). For many of the products this will be only one more formality (as, for example, the producing country), but for some high expensive and bulky wares, and in all cases for the cars and more voluminous vehicles, this period must be observed, otherwise will be required to be paid taxes to the state. I will propose three things, which may be applied as and /or. One of them is paying of tax till the end of service life of the product, regardless of this whether one uses it, or have thrown it on the garbage (or still keeps it somewhere, if has found a place for it), what reduces to this that if one car has to serve for 12 years, then if somebody buys a new one after 3 years, then he /she must pay a tax for the old one for 9 more years. In case that the thing was sold (with official document), or, respectively, bought back by the shop as compensation, then it is registered to the shop and the latter must pay the tax for it from the day of buying it and to the end of the required period, unless it succeeds to sell it officially as second hand ware, and then the tax goes to the new owner. More than this, for many of the merchandises, for which till now taxes were not collected (like refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, etc.), such taxes will emerge; if the people buy new such things before expiring of the service life of the old ones; there must be also some regulations for this to how many persons (or rooms in the dwelling) is taken for normal to have one such product (say, a TV set or computer can be put in each room, or for each person). It is not at all difficult to exist also some way for acknowledgement if the merchandise is damaged, in which case, naturally, this tax will not be paid. Well, there must be maintained some data bases, but for the contemporary computers this is not a problem more, especially if there goes about 5-10 such goods (per person).

     My second proposition is an excise for new models of long-lasting machinery, which must be in the limits of 10 to 30% of the value of the wares (for cars about 30, for refrigerators — 20, and for TV sets — 10%, for example) and it to remain valid during the first several years of the boom (from 3 to 5 years). Out of this will again win directly the state, and I can't see which state will be opposed to one more excise duty, and will lose only about 10% of the clients, who are more prosperous and can't wait until the thing gets cheaper (also by itself, not only because of the excise). As much as such things are produced mainly by big companies, registered for VAT, then there will be no problems for collecting of the tax by the state. And the third thing is obliging of the companies selling such products to buy back the old similar products from the clients, returning them from 10 to 20 percents of the value of the thing, where must be also regulations about what to understand under "similar" products (because one may buy living room furniture consisting of sofa with two armchairs and a little table, but to have at home only sofa and two armchairs, or some other variant). This means that each company has to go to the person and see what he has at home establishing in this way what it may return him back, but not less than 10%, and the customer must be in position to choose that one who returns him most, but all this notwithstanding whether the company will use somehow the obtained back products or will burn them, for example (if this is a furniture set), as also to take over the payment of taxes for the old goods, if such still must be paid.

     Well, this may increase the price of the new products but in return the old ones will be used oftener; this may lead also to some socialization of the society, i.e. more suffering will be the wealthy ones, but this is an obvious tendency (unless one specially turns a blind eye — i.e. the tendency is in this, that the world goes to socialism, no matter that usually not this word is used). At first sight this will increase the unemployment, but in a long run I don't think so, because will be wanted more workers in the services for repairing of the things, by using of the garbage, if the wares are thrown out, and so on, so that everything can be balanced, by good regulation from the top. In this way the progress may slow down a bit, in some areas (of goods for mass consumption), but, my God, where to we are so hurrying? A very fast progress may lead only to sufficiently fast destruction afterwards, or at least to creating of conditions for fast and strong destruction, which, if will not be satisfied — well, then will arise even more drastical destruction. So that if we slow a bit the consumption, at the expense of this we will be in position to direct our efforts to more actual things, for which there is never enough time and money (to new energy sources, healthier feeding, better medical care, better and more individual education, and so on). This will make also our life more quiet, because: for less than a century now is changing the photography, the technique of recording of sound, the telephony, and what else not — continuing in this way, one just don't know what to study and what will be good for him in the future! Isn't it really clear that from much haste and rushing we can only stumble and fall down (in the next economical crisis)?

     And I will to remind you also this, that on this world (and, maybe, on the "other", too) there are only two ways for incessant moving in one and the same direction (what we also try to do, isn't it, to move always forward and even further forward in the living standard), and they are the following, expressing ourselves in the language of mathematics, as mathematical curves: either in circle (i.e. in cycle, spiraling etc.), or in exponent, i.e. always higher and with ever increasing velocity, but so that be always in position to grow even higher and with the same increase of the velocity and acceleration. But the exponent, it is invented mathematical curve, in the nature "more and more" and ad infinitum for one long period of time does not happen, one day comes time for slump and closing of the cycle. So that some limitation of our consumerist appetites, and done with mild or financial means, would have done us nothing bad (in the long run). One lives happy when he meets with some resistance in satisfying of his desires, not when he may find everything what he wants ready in the shops. We rush greedily to consume because from this wins the business, not because this is healthy for our organisms. But enough emotions, for the next point is in some extent consequence of this.

     At the end I will add one more, fourth, variant for increasing of the usability of produced and still good wares, which is applied in various countries, but not in the poor ones, or at least not in Bulgaria. It goes about charity bazaars, which are organized mainly under the protection of some church and where everybody who has something redundant but still good (like: TV set, refrigerator, bedstead, suit of clothes or other garments, pots, garden equipment, etc.) offers it free to the local governmental institution /church, there are organized temporary committees for assessment of the things (cheap enough and only for the more valuable things), then they are sold and the money remains for the organizer, that does something for the people in the neighbourhood. Together with this there are pair of days in the year (maybe related with some church holidays) when everybody who has unnecessary things at home just takes them before the house and whoever comes by and likes something he just gets it; the things stay so for some days and what remains is moved to the garbage. If we (as not much religious people) don't know really when to organize such free markets then I may propose, say: 4.4, 8.8, and 12.12 — very nice dates, I'll tell you. The only thing that I am afraid of is that by us from early morning will come out the "minorities" and will begin to run around and collect more valuable things in order to sell them later, so that will be necessary for the citizens (well, also for those in the villages) to watch for this, unethical deeds not to happen.



4. The garbage



     Surely I will not "discover America" stating that nowadays our garbage grows with significantly faster steps than the galloping world population, because if the people double on the average for 35 years (what, by the way, means for one century exactly 8 times), then the garbage, a priori, doubles in the best case for 20 years (but I an afraid that this happens on the average for 15 years). And grows especially, let us call it so, the "garbage of the prosperity", this what forces to us the "modern" way of life, not the actual household food wastes, as it was earlier, and which today, by my rough estimation, are merely about 20% (in weight) from all that we throw away. More precisely speaking I find that the garbage is divided more or less so: 20% these are old metallic and other durable wares (cars, washing machines, electric stoves, TV sets, etc.), which one rarely throws on the garbage but they are big and obtrusive, state long time, and require many efforts for their destruction; 20% these are wastes from construction or reconstruction (plaster, wallpaper, bathroom tiles, parquet, toilet bowls, if you want — and even if you don't want —, etc.), which can be used for nothing; 10% is broken glass (bottles, jars, broken window panes), which supposedly are collected separately, but not much seriously, and incompletely, at least by us; 10% are plastics (mostly bottles), which as volume, however, may make up to the half of all garbage, because they are full with air, which we later bury in the earth; 10% is wood (woodwork of windows, old furniture, some crates for vegetables, etc.), which may be burned, but nobody does this; 10% are other industrial wares like fabrics (i.e. clothes, mattresses , and similar things), plastic appliances and others, which seemingly can't be used for whatever; and 20% this is the real household garbage.

     Now, this question, surely, is not new, and something is done about it, but this is not at all enough. My propositions in the case are reduced to two types of measures: for one thing the garbage has to be collected differentially, so that this, that can be used again, to be used, but in this situation the collecting of many kinds of garbage now is not profitable, so that is must be made such (at least for the purpose to be made easy their destruction later); and for another thing to decrease the production of unneeded packaging (wrappings) or ads, without which, definitively, we can also do. Put it otherwise, there are two ways to keep your home clean: either to cleanse it regularly, or to muck less, isn't it? Let us look now in more details to the things.

     About using of the garbage: these 20% household garbage were and will always remain the proper garbage, we shall not deal with them (it might be required dividing of this, that decays and turns to fertilizer, from this, that can't, but I think that even if somebody pays us for this, still, the majority of people will not do it). The wastes from construction, however, which give 1/5 of the whole garbage and show no tendency at all to decrease in the near future (because people want to modernize from time to time their homes), must be collected separately and shredded and used for filling of some low places or abysses, or for dikes, or for something of the kind, but in any case they can't be burned or melted. The old sets and appliances, like cars, washing machines et cetera, which are roughly again as much in their weight, first of all must diminish due to the proposed in the previous point measures, and then must be used all that may be taken from them, and the left has to be added (in general terms) to the wastes from construction. The broken glass must be collected also in this way, but to be divided in white and coloured, as this is done in some countries, and to be possible to see what is put in these containers. The plastics, ah, nobody does nothing about it, and it is expected that very soon all glass packaging will be turned into plastic one and then this part will reach about 20%, and by this with all the air in it; hence here either the bottles must be flattened before entering the container, or to be collected often enough and in bigger containers (also transparent, to be seen what is in them), or then their collecting must be made profitable. This "profitablizing" of the things isn't a new phenomenon, it is done sometimes and requires that the state pays higher (maybe 2-3 times) prices, than the actual, but this must be the state for to have better control, because otherwise some of our guys may decide to organize production of empty bottles for returning as scrap. Then the things that can burn must be burned, there is no other way, and if this is not profitable for the people, then there must be again some increased purchase prices — if you can, then propose something else, but to bury the wood in the earth is just silly. And the textile and some other things that can also burn can be destroyed in this way, too.

     Now about the packages: well, why should they always be shining (i.e. to be with some plastic or foil) and more than the needed? Because of the commerce, isn't it? The same also about the printed advertisements. In this respect the business will do nothing to better the situation, because the packaging turn to be cheap enough, so that there must again some other instance to say its word, for example the state, explaining, on one hand, to the people the alphabetical truth (which I tell for some 20 years, but why should somebody listen to me?), that each advertisement is paid by the client — because there simply is no one to pay for it! Together with this must be also some financial burdening of the clients and producers, for to make them to show some sense of proportion regarding the packages, where the radical decision is the production of the major part of plastic and paper packaging to become priority of the state and be charged with an excise. I personally very well remember the time when we went to buy yogurt with pots (and it was really thick and they scooped it with big spoons), or that the folks carried their cigarettes in cigarette cases and didn't buy every day hard packages with cigarettes (which later threw away), or that the cooking oil was poured in bottles, the sugar was weighed, and many other wares, too. It is true that the packaged wares are more comfortable for selling, but nowadays, I think, there is nothing else that is used less than a packaging, which is, if not something more, then simply superfluous, it is not from the nature, i.e. it is outside the natural cycles. Until we make (if we can) such cycles (say, bacteria that consumes the plastics), I advise most insistently to refuse the unnecessary packages for single use, and if needed, to introduce excise duties for almost all packages, because this our attitude to the world around us is not of a good owner, it is of a squanderer (or, to tell it in Italian, because there is sounds pretty comical, of perdigiorno, 'perdidzhorno', where giorno is a day).



5. The people



     But wait, what wants to tell us this author, will it now come out that the people must also be destroyed, and that we do this, too, not properly? Well, in certain sense, yes, we don't know how to do this, too. But the point isn't in this, that it is better the people, after they leave this world, to be burned instead of buried in the earth. The point isn't only in this, but this question, too, is not solved for all and depends on some religious traditions, where according to me the only reason for which one might have preferred to be buried is that if sometime may become possible some resurrection (not by God, surely, he, being a god, must succeed somehow to cope with this task), then, theoretically, this might happen from some bone cell, and when one is dissolved in atoms then there simply is no way for this. Well, but if this is so, then let everybody save by a hair, clipping of a nail, or, if wants it so, to ... spit in a piece of foam plastic, and leave this in some bank save, and in this way the question will be solved (for the moment). But I don't think that many people will express a wish to be resurrected after a big amount of time, because when one grows old even in the current time it becomes difficult for him /her to live with the young, and what to think about after 5-10 centuries, for example, or at least I do not wish to be resurrected after passing away. But in any case the cemeteries in many cities are already overfilled, occupy perhaps about 10% of the city area, spread on the ground, instead of to be at least in 3-4 storeys, and this having in mind that one will rarely encounter a grave older than a century, and what will be the situation after a pair of centuries, if we continue in this spirit?

     But, as I said, the question isn't only in this, it is that we don't know when and in what way to get rid of some people! For example, by court sentencing of the offenders and sending them in prison, is still considered, at least in USA, but I thing also in every other country, that it is important for the culprit to understand his errors, and is he sane (i.e. not crazy) or not, where the point is wide away from that— if you ask me —, because the purpose of the sentencing is twofold: on one hand to serve as a lesson for potential future criminals, and on the other hand to isolate this individual from the others because he is dangerous for them. I don't say that it is irrelevant whether one understands his errors or not, but in severe crimes this makes practically no difference for the society, the important thing is to isolate him and punish him hard. But if this is so, then also the juveniles, and the insane and mentally handicapped (as much as one murderer can be sane), are subjected to one and the same punishment, and this regardless the fact whether they understand or not their faults. Besides, I have the feeling (who has more precise information in his disposition let corrects me), that nowadays in the prisons and correctional institutions, including the warders, stay about 5% of the population (or one out of 20), because in many cases the convicted were forced to wait, for to enter the jail, what I find as not at all small figure; and earlier the people there have worked something, but now, by this unemployment rate everywhere, what kind of work one can find for them, so that they just stay there, they are fed, clothed, healed, educated, and so on, and in many cases live better than many of the ordinary free citizens. In short, I want to say, that the keeping of our prisoners comes very expensive for us, with the only excuse, primarily, to be in position to beat our breasts that we are very humane.

     Not that we must shot everybody, but: firstly, the dead penalty is simply necessary, because it is what restrains the criminals, and further, if it comes about terrorists, then they never will better themselves, so that it is an absolute luxury to leave them alive; secondly, the prisoners must work something or live in harsh conditions and in remote areas (on islands, if there are such), so that not only to repay what has given, but also to carry some gains to the state, because it is very insolently to want that the good and honest citizens work also for those that are in the prisons; thirdly, by relatively slight offenses, say by financial, the convicted must have some possibility to work off their sentences, instead of to stay in prison, deducting their incomes up to 50%, if needed, and also after going out of prison, if it was necessary to stay there for some time, to be charged with additional "prison" tax, until they succeed to pay off their financial obligations, if they can, to the society; fourthly, each sentenced — as also each citizen of age — must have the legal right to chose the death, if he wants, and the society must give it to him in one organized, legal, free of charge, and painless way; fifthly, there are many cases of minor offenses and immoral deeds, for which must be find some way for public accusation of the person and his directing in the right way, and not only when some crime is committed, i.e. there must exist some moral organs, whose duty is to become interested how a given person lives, what he does not like, what he wants, and is it possible or not, and the people must feel the social environment in which they live, not to fight alone with the injustices, in other words, the world must become more moral (as it was for many centuries); sixthly, there must exist organs (when we are not totalitarian country), which have to study and fight with the causes for the offenses, not only with the consequences; and surely other things.

     If we do not take measures about these questions the terrorism, and the crime between juveniles, will continue to grow, and this for no reasonable causes, i.e. not because the people have nothing to eat and where to sleep, but exactly on the contrary, because everything is arranged, with the exception of this, that some are greater individualists than the other people and suppose that only they are right. Because, good or bad, but this world is the best of all possible — otherwise some other would have been established.

     There is, however, also another question, not so harmful to the society, but important enough and still not solved, which arises again because we can't get rid of some not very actively taking part in the life of community people, without excluding them from the left, but just sending them, so to say, in a "sidetrack". I mean the retirement, what is relatively new problem — arisen this time not entirely in the time of Marx, but rather in that of ... Otto von Bismark, because it turns out that he was who has introduced the social securities in Europe (or at least in Germany) —, for earlier there were not occupational old-age pensions, and only in some exceptional cases (for senior governmental officials, widows of fallen in the battles for fatherland, orphans, and other similar situations), i.e. for 5, maximum 10% of the population, and the other people have worked until they could, i.e. until they "kick the bucket". So that this question is raised and stays so and nobody even tries to solve it properly, because in the last decades is only moving above the age for pension, more or less synchronously with the growing life span, but this isn't decision of the question (just financial regulation of the funds), on account of the fact that even for a pre-school child is clear that one 50-year-old man, to say nothing about the older ones (or about the women — because they live longer than the men, but surrender earlier), naturally, is not so efficient as a 20 year old; it is true that exist experience and mastery, but labour productivity falls and fatigability increases, and there some very special mastery is not needed nowadays, by this widespread automation. And then, by this situation, who else can propose something reasonable, if not yours truly author.

     Here is the simplest proposition: after 50 years to allow work, as a rule, only on half-day basis, with the exception of special decision of the enterprise for each given person, hold every year. This is reasonable proposition because it is compromise, is not either so — else otherwise, and if begins to be applied then the presence of aging people in the enterprises will diminish, roughly speaking, by half, because they, too, will be glad (for it is not that they don't like to do something, to be useful, they want this, but are just not so fit anymore, even if they went to fitness — something what they, almost sure, don't do), and the young ones will have more space for development. But this solves the problem for those up to about 60 years, and now we climb also above 65 years, and after some 10 years or so we will reach to 70 years for going on pension, what is a full calamity. And even for these people this is not a good decision, because one first wants to leave the work, and then begins to think with what to occupy himself! And there is no smoothness, the step is only one, to the half.

     My next proposition is significantly more acceptable and almost with nothing more difficult for implementation. It is reduced to this that there are 8 levels of reduction of the working time with by one eighth (i.e. 12.5%), which enter by 5 years, beginning with the 50th anniversary, or as follows: at the age of 50 each worker begins to work with 1/8 less time (it may be each day, but the reduction may also be accumulated for the last day of the week), after 55 years is working with 2/8 = 1/4 of the time less (what is obvious that will be felt), after 60 years — with 3/8 (roughly with 1/3) less, after 65 — then on half-day basis, after 70 years one works (if they still keep him at work, of course) only 3/8 of the time, after 75 — only 1/4, after 80 — the symbolic 1/8 of the working time(every second day for two hours, for example), and only after 85 years and until one wants, even if he goes to work, he receives nothing. But in order to reach one practically ideal equilibrium between this, works one or not, i.e. this to depend on the enterprise, but also on the very person, must be decided also the question with receiving of some pension if he doesn't work, right? The possibility to work when one already receives pension is not a new phenomenon and many people do this, but if they have gone to pension significantly early (say, they have worked in army), while now this will become at 50 years (till which time, if there is not very strong unemployment, and if the tertiary education is counted for length of service, one will have at least 25 years of service, or sufficiently enough for a decent pension) and for all people, what is correct to call initial retirement; later, after each 5 years, will be possible to add more service, if there will be such, taking into account the part of the working time for this period (but not recalculating the whole service from the beginning). By the contemporary computerized systems there are no problems to make these calculations on ongoing basis and momentarily for all, what will even enhance the collecting of taxes. So that one will receive, say, 3/4 of the salary for 3/4of working time, but also 1/4 of the pension which is due to him till the moment, and when the part of the salary will decrease, then the part of the pension will increase, and not only as percentage but also as length of service, so that somewhere around 65 years for the person will be just the same whether he will receive salary and pension, or only pension (in sense, that if he continues still to work, he will receive 15 percents or so more money, and his pension will also increase a little, but at the same time he will lose as many percents of his income, because to live at home is much cheaper than out between the people). Well, I simply see no drawbacks.



6. The information



     The last thing, that I will rather just touch, is what to do with the informational avalanche, where we are again outside of some cycle, because we only add, but don't delete, where the natural decision (of the nature) is the things somehow to get lost and to remain only little, but what is worth to retain. In this relation I recall one existed between the programmers aphorism, that the church only for that reason succeeded to stay so long, because it knows how to collect, forbid, and spread the information. And we nowadays don't know this, I mean as storied on an electronic medium, because the books they grow old, and if they are not issued anew they will disappear after some time. Especially alarming is the problem with the Internet, where the only solacing fact is that it is still very new, so that till now we have not had to think about (but when will be forced to do this, will we be in position to do it?). We not only have not some method for gradual loss of what is not used, but we do not divide the things, don't put them on shelves and in different libraries, but throw everything in one heap, or WW-web or net (well, there are different languages, surely, but this has meaning only for the Bulgarian, Hungarian, Estonian, and other similar less spoken languages, yet there are world ones, on which speak milliards of people, where division simply does not exist; besides, this is not division exactly by languages but by countries and /or alphabets).

Said in another way, till now we just boast that have so much "gigas" and "teras" in one place that can write everything — because we, really, can store all textual information of the humanity, so to say, each pronounced word by whoever, or even by all people on the world! And mark the word "textual", as characters, because if one photo, for example, is somewhere around 2 MB (1000 by 1000 pixels and by 2 bytes for the colour), then the same volume will have the ... collected works of Shakespeare, or the Bible, or Mark Twain, or whom you prefer (only Lenin will take place as for 2-3 photos, and Agatha Christie or Simenon will require, maybe, about 4), because as much characters give also 1000 pages by 2000 characters in them. There may be problems with analog information (represented in digital way), as sound, pictures, and mainly as "moving" pictures (for movies), but there, too, the capacities of repositories grow with wild rates (until we reach nearly atomic level, maybe).

     So in passing arises another problem, for which I give also the corresponding solution; this problem is that we have not ... words for more than giga (10^12) things, and the decision will become clear now, but let me give first some explanations of the previous names. The kilo comes from the gluing together in heaps (like the words kley-glue, in Russian, or then your cluster); the mega is of the kind of magazines (what usually, at least in Slavonic languages) means big shop; the giga is from the Greek giants; and the tera, obviously, is from the terra-earth. Well, then let us continue in this spirit: after this (1000 times bigger thing) comes soli — from the Solar system; then (again multiplied by 1000) gala — from the galaxy; then (once more time by 1000) hypi (for the Russians, maybe, gipi) — from the hyper space (whatever it may be, or at least from the very big hyper something); and at the end (again by 1000) is the universal Universe, what should have been uni, but I think that it sounds better as guni. For completeness of the observation, but without much thorough thinking, because I doubt that so much stronger diminishing will be necessary, will give also the decrementing (again by 1000 times) units, which are: mile, micro, nano, pico, plus the new: fifi, sisi, tutu ('tyutyu'), nono.



Conclusion



     If we sum up the major moments of this essay may be said that we, the humans, have never been able to destroy properly this, what is necessary to be destroyed, but try to destroy that, what we can, because the passion for destruction is deeply hidden in our genes. Till before a century and a bit more we have coped more or less (using not at all always legal ways, is righteous to be added, when we live in legal state) with these problems, regardless the cruelties or murders, because on the background of this, what the nature has served us (like epidemics and other cataclysms) we alone have not harmed ourselves especially strong. With the significant increasing of the power of mankind, however, and the distancing of the destruction from our personal presence at the very place, it turns out that now we have not more the right to destroy so spontaneously; as also that with the introduction of artificial materials, which are not part of natural cycles, becomes necessary to close compulsory these cycles, wasting additional energy and time for unnecessary (at the first sight) destruction, because we apply also unnecessary (from the point of view of the nature) creation. Long ago was time to start returning to the nature, to learn how to fit in it, and change not the nature, but ourselves, when have begun to make changes on our own initiative.



     August 2011








APPENDIX

Crashing's Not Easy









Why the children want to crash,

And throw things, and break, and smash?

Well, they want just to create,

And for them destruction's great.



Why men like to fight in wars,

To combat and scatter blows?

Well, for them to ruin is

Often their masterpiece.



But the children are excused

For to build they are not used.

Where grown men are much worse

For they like to shatter first.



All in all, in every deed

Some destruction you will need,

And if even you are god

You must wield the crushing rod.



Year, but if the case is such,

You first ponder and then touch,

Do it carefully, calm,

Don't spread horror but give balm.



Otherwise, or if for fun

You've done it, — the case's not done.

For, flown certain proper time,

And your work costs not a dime.



That's because the things react,

They regroup and build new packs,

And in turn make you regret

Silly brandishing the bat.



And especially that's true

When to folks you something do,

For they can accumulate

And return, but when it's late.



So you hit and you are hit

Growing clever not a bit.

Hence, you better don't give blows

To avoid much ahs and ohs.



July 2011

















Signaler ce texte