The more you do the more you die


Before I left for Canada, if you were reading my pre-departure blogs, you'll know that I didn't do too much with my time. I exercised a lot. And I had a few other projects on the go. But I had very little committed time. There was very little that I had to do at specific times on specific days. Most of the things that I did, I did on my terms. And back before I left, my brain was so active. I would barely do anything all day. Yet I was writing blogs every 2 or 3 days. And often times, I'd have more to write about than I had the time to write it. For some reason, doing very little all day, meant that my brain was really, really, active. I actually thought shit through rather than just rolling with the norm.

Yet look at today. I'm working a 35-40 hour week like most people. I have commitments, like most people. On 5 of my 7 days of the week, I have to be at certain places at certain times. Probably around half of my conscious hours in my week, are spent obiding by a calendar that I cannot differentiate from. And right now, I'm writing what? 1 blog a week? Today is the 18th February, and this is my second entry of the month. It's like I've become brain-dead. I've got into a routine, and I've just stopped thinking. My brain just isn't being creative any more. So much so that I'm having to start this blog entry, by writing about how I have nothing to write about. It's like I've become brain dead.

Let me just run through my typical daily routine here. Alarm goes off at 6am. Turn off alarm. Get out of bed. Stretch. Turn off second alarm positioned by door, just in case I go back to sleep after turning off first alarm. Pick towel off back of door. Go to bathroom. Use toilet. Brush teeth. Have shower. Pick up towel, and dry myself in shower: Hair first. Then right leg. Then left leg. Then back. Front. Left arm. Right arm. Back again. And out. Get dressed: Thermal underwear first. Then Under Armour. Then jumper. Ski pants. Then socks. Go to kitchen. Wash out sandwich box, coffee mug, and refill water bottle. Make sandwich for lunch. Put bread in toaster. Whilst bread is toasting, sit down on sofa and switch on TV. Flick between the 2 music channels to find best one. Butter toast. Eat toast in front of TV. Eat tinned fruit salad. Get belongings together and put on boots. Put on first jacket. Put on second jacket. Tap left pocket of backpack to check for wallet. Tap right pocket of backpack to check for keys. Leave house at exactly 7am on the microwave clock. Walk up hill to bus stop. Bus arrives about 30 seconds later. Get on bus and turn on mp3. As but arrives at mountain and turns corner by sign, turn off mp3, and put back into bag. Walk from bus to mountain ops. Look left as walking through door to confirm roster. Go to locker. Change into work jacket. Pick up skis and ski boots. Velcro boots together. Put backpack back on. Put boots over shoulder. Pick up skis again. Collect coffee card from manager. Walk to Mile 1 lift. Put skis on rack. Go into great hall. Use toilet. Go to table. Change boots. Get hot chocolate with coffee card. Wait for morning meeting.

This will take me through to about 8am. So I will have been up for 2 hours by this point. Yet I can guarantee you that on a working day, everything from the order in which I dry body parts when I get out of the shower, to the routine I'll go through in front of my locker at work, will be exactly the same, every fucking day. Now I'm sorry you had to sit through that whole routine. But just be thankful I changed my mind from listing my whole day there. But the point that I'm trying to demonstrate here, is that I've essentially become a zombie. Where as when I was doing nothing with my days, my brain was active. I didn't know what was going to happen everyday, and I had some variety. It kept me on my toes. Where as now, I consciously know every single aspect of how my day will go. And it's just made me brain dead. I'm just accepting of everything, and I don't have the will to add any variety. How the hell did this happen?

People always bang on about the value of working. And the value of getting into a routine. But I'll be honest, people of those values must truthfully just be stuck in the same monotony that I am. Because anyone with an active, free-thinking mind, must surely be able to see that this is no way to live. This routine, this daily grind that we go through. That is supposedly the 'better quality of life' that is achieved by capitalism. But in their brain-dead drive to fulfil their daily routine requirement, people have forgotten to actually think. Everything has become automatic. And the reason that I chose the title for this blog that I did, is that if you've got stuck in your routine. If you go through everyday without thinking. Without looking outside of your own little world. Your own little microcosm. Then what have you become? You've just manifested into nothing more than a servant. A replaceable robot. And if this is all you are, then what is your unique purpose? What about you would be lost if you died tomorrow? Nothing. Nothing. You have no unique qualities. So you can be replaced.

People like to think that humans have evolved much faster than other creatures. But when you think about it, capitalism is no different from the qualities animals portray in nature. How does your boss differ from an alpha male? Or a queen bee? We like to think that we're all individual. But in reality, stuck in this brain-dead routine, everyone is replaceable.

And you know, I've noticed something of a trend in the way that people go through a process of rebellion. They protest. Then they accept. Not too long ago, global warming was the flavour of the month. It was all over the media. People were willing to make changes. To be pro-active. To do something about it. Then all of a sudden, the economic crisis hits. And all of a sudden, it doesn't matter anymore. People protested global warming. But now we're in a state of accepting it's going to happen, so let's just make the most of it.

The same trend applies in corporation. At the same time as energy giants were announcing huge price increases, they were also announcing huge profits. I was talking about this at some point in the pre-departure blogs. Why do you think that they announced these 2 things within 24 hours of each other? It's because people will protest. Then they'll accept it. So why get them riled up twice? Just announce all the bad news in one swoop, they'll make a bit of noise for a couple of days. And then they'll just accept it. And when you look at many of the outcomes of capitalisms short-falls, the actions of unjustifiable greed that people and companies have been allowed to get away with, have become the status-quo as people are lulled into a state of acceptance of wrong-doings. Corruption and collusion within corporation, has become the status-quo, and so it has become accepted.

How else do you explain multi-nationals (MNC's) recording profits in the billions of dollars in supposedly competitive markets, and getting away with it? The rules of the capitalist market state that in the competitive market place, take the telecoms industry as an example, competitive practise will require companies to compete on price, driving down the overall cost to the consumer. You can start banging on about differentiation if you want. But in telecoms, you really have voice communication, and text communication. Please illustrate to me where a company can offer a different product here. They can't. So of what? 6 major telecoms companies in the UK (Vodafone, O2, T-Mobile, Orange, Virgin, Tesco Mobile) that I can think of off the top of my head, whom can't realistically provide a differentiated product, how are they all able to record substancial profits? Whether it has been verbally agreed upon or not, there is a clear agreement in place to continue to charge text messages at what? 10 pence per message on pay as you go? That's about the going rate I think. How much does it cost Vodafone to send your text for you? Nothing. The variable costs on a text message are zero. So in a competitive market place without collusion, the cost to send a message, should be below 1 penny per message. It's blatant. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain, that there is anti-competitive practise within the telecoms industry. I pick on telecoms because I have a real beef with them, but the story is the same in many, many industries. And we even have a competition commission which chooses to ignore such blatant mal-practise within industry, offering questions about their integrity. A tax-payer funded organisation. But yet such questionable practise has become the norm to such an extent that we just stand by and accept it. Many people have never known anything different. Essentially companies take billions out of our pockets, to line the pockets of those whom already have more money than they know how to spend. It might not be stealing as defined by law. But essentially, it is theft on the grandest scale. But it's become the status-quo. So we let it happen.

We stand by whilst companies steal billions from our pockets. Getting richer at our expense. Yet if a hungry child steals a loaf of bread from Tesco's, he'll be arrested. People have their electricity turned off in Winter if they can't afford the payments, despite energy companies profits demonstrating collusion and overcharging. Essentially, stealing. And people have to live without clean drinking water because the water companies have participated in exactly the same practise. Someone tell me how that is justifiable. How that can be a demonstration of "society"?

I'll tell you how. Because we try to define right and wrong, in one simple, manipulatable document, known as law. But it doesn't matter how detailed we make law. If it was 1,000 times more so than it is now, it cannot cater for every eventuality. It cannot even come close. And because it cannot be defined in the detail it needs to be, it can be manipulated. Which is why it's illegal for little Johnny to steal a loaf of bread. But for Vodafone to steal billions from peoples pockets, it's accepted. Call it business if you will. It might not be defined as theft by law. But it is by common sense. A mobile phone has become an essential tool in life. And Vodafone are manipulating this essential tool for financial gain, at the expense of the layman. You could argue that a mobile is a luxury still. But try that argument with water companies. It is theft. Plain and simple. It's just the law doesn't see it that way. At least not to the extent that it is acted upon. And I guess on some level, this realisation may be part of the reason I'm travelling right now. Having completed a 4-year business degree, a logical step would be to become Vodafone's next puppet. With the knowledge I have, I could settle into a career and live comfortably from this point until death. But what I was taught about business over those 4 years, disgusted me to the extent that I honestly don't want any part of it. I'm somewhat alone in those views, as my peers seem destined for a lifetime serving these big companies. And they seem happy about it. But I just don't want to be a part of the machine that pandas to the rich, to give more and more power to fewer and fewer people. Leaving the many as nothing more than servants.

The big argument against globalisation, is that is would essentially sentence poorer countries to eternal service to developed countries. This, in effect, is the same model in effect within national economies. The rich few gain a position of such power, that the poor majority, can't do shit about it. And although the poor may be in the majority, the poor whom are not on the payroll of one of the rich few, are in a vast minority. So who would stand up to them? Just as the West will be forever rich, condemning the developing world to a lifetime of service if globalisation continues, these rich few within the national economies will become... untouchable. And to an extent, they already are. Why face the wrath of Vodafone if it can be avoided? The minority of people not trapped under the wing of corporation don't have the power to influence Vodafone in any significant manor. And such is their power, why would the competition commission want to enrage them? I wouldn't say that corporation has developed to the point that they are wholly untouchable yet. But we're heading that way. It is only time until they hold power over government. And then what? They have already demonstrated levels of unnecessary greed. It cannot in any way, shape or form, benefit the majority.

Which is why, at the end of the day, I'm an anarchist. I shouldn't be. Having a business degree should make me pro-captalism all the way. But I think the time I took my degree conicided too closely with a deterioration of the climate. And everyday in lectures, I'd see the selfish values we were being taught. And everyday, I'd consider the impact that these values had. Not just on me, and on my business, as we were taught to think. But on the macro environment. And it was clear to me, that if the values we were taught were implemented in the real world more than they already are being done, it can only lead to bad things. Business takes into account one thing. Profit. It has no consideration for social impact. For climate impact. For environmental impact. And although people make the case for ethical business, is any business with the power to implement significant change, ethical? Is Coca-Cola? Is producing millions and millions of plastic bottles everyday, an ethical business? Is Wal-Mart? Is undercutting independent local retailiers to push them out of business, an ethical business? Is Microsoft? Abusing its position to release over-priced products, and making them necessary for everyday use? Is Shell? Is GM? Does any company of significant standing, offer real ethical practise? No. Because ethics cost money. And the less money you have, the less power you have. In global capitalism, the practise of doing right by thy neighbour, is nonsense. The practise of doing right for ones self, regardless of consequence, is king. Trade was developed from cavemen trading fire-logs for wooly-mammoth meat. And the use of money was added to the equation, to gather clearer value of a persons stock. Trade was never designed to be conducted on the scale that global capitalism requires. Which is exactly why it gets us into so much shit. Global warming would be a much smaller issue, or maybe even a nonsensical hypothy, without trade. I'm not even sure that's a word, but it seems to fit. There would not be such an extreme class of rich, if it was not for trade. And as a consequence, there would be less poverty. The rich-poor divide is a spectrum. You cannot have the extreme rich, and the quite poor. You either have the very, very rich, and the very, very poor. Or you have the quite rich, and the quite poor. It's a spectrum which changes equally at both ends. So as we have trade on such a large scale, making the rich even richer, the poor continue to get poorer and poorer. Capitalism causes so many problems, so no. I'm not pro-capitalism. Not even a little bit.

Like I said. I believe in anarchy. I have the belief that the punishment for any action, should be decided and implemented by the reaction of the person or persons affected by the initial action. How can law fully understand how I was affected should you commit a crime against me? It cannot. So how can law conclude an appropriate punishment for your action? It can't. It just takes a wild guess. 6 months in jail perhaps. That should not be the sole preventative measure, in consideration for an action. Much like during the cold-war, what prevented Russia and America nuking the shit out of each other? It was the assurance of mutual destruction. Each party understood that the reaction by the other, would result in a similar fate for the aggressor. The threat of reaction, kept people safe. But in society, the threat of reaction from law, does not directly correlate with the gain of committing particular illegal action. Which is why we have crime. If people continue to commit crime, it is because the threat of potential punishment does not deter from the possibilities of potential gains. In fact law only implements punshment in what? 2 or 3 different ways. Incarceration, financial loss, or community service. If none of these are deterants to you, then you have no reason not to take the risk of crime. Face the wrath of an unknown entity however, and the deterant is much stronger. If you try and steal my wallet, I may be the kind of person whom will let you have it. Or I may be the kind of person who will hunt you down, kill your wife, and rape your grandmother. The deterant of the unknown, could act as a greater deterant than the threat of imprisonment.

And it goes without saying that I have some disagreements with what law deems illegal. How is it possible to steal from telecoms companies, when they have already stolen more than you could take? That's why I have no beef in not paying my $150 phone bill since I put my cell phone through the washing machine. That phone cost me $55. If my calls and texts have cost this company even $3, I'd be amazed. So do I have any guilt about not paying them $150? None at all. Is it wrong for me not to pay them $150? That's debatable. But what does the law say? The law says I'm a criminal. The law can suck my balls. Which is the other problem with law. It is so anal, that people just ignore it. I expect to break the law multiple times daily. Jaywalking. Downloading illegal music. Countless more activites. I'm so used to breaking the law, that it just doesn't figure into my justification for what I do. Much of the law is such bullshit, that I refuse to live by it. I live by my own morals. And if those morals and law disagree, then so be it. And this is my point. Does anyone get hurt when I jay-walk? No. Does anyone get hurt when I download a pirate movie or song? No (and don't get me started on that). So I have no respect for the law. Will there be any reaction from the affected parties of such "crimes"? No. Because no one fucking cares. It doesn't hurt anyone. There will be no reaction from anyone. So I am not detered. It should not even be illegal activity.

The problem with law, is it is supposedly a set of morals. But like I've said, some of these morals, are very non-moral. Not immoral, non-moral. They aren't moral, they aren't immoral. They're just pointless. But how far do you take this? Some immoral activies are govenerned by anarchy. What is the preventative to cheating on your girlfriend? Her reaction. You won't go to prison for it. You won't gain a criminal record for it. You simply weigh it up. Pros versus cons. What is the preventative for eating the last slice of pizza? The reaction from the people around you. Many "non-illegal" issues are governed by anarchy. But yet society has deemed it necessary to draw a line. And anything above this line, needs to be dealt with by guidelines. Why? Why is me walking across the street not at a crossing, an issue for the law. But pissing all over a toilet seat and not wiping it up, not? Which one's going to have an affect on someone? Someone has to clean up the piss. No one will ever know that I walked across the street. The bottom line in my opinion, is that anarchy is the best governor. Our prisons are overflowing because no one respects law. Like I said, I break the law daily. And don't think twice about it. And I will continue to live by my own morals, regardless of their legality or not. Will that land me in jail one day? Who knows? But to me, the biggest deterant to an action, will be the adverse reaction of the people affected by my action. What law does, however, is limit these reactions. If I stole something from my neighbour, in an anarchaic society (again, not sure that that's a word), his reaction could have deterred me. However, being accepting of the law, as my hypothetical neighbour is, he will have no reaction. His reaction will be to allow the law to handle the situation. Yet as I've demonstrated, the law has little to no influence over me. So in essence, as I know his reaction will be muted because of his reliance on the law, and I have no regard for the law itself, my motivation to steal from my neighbour, is stronger than it would be, with no law. If there was no law, I'd face the full force of his reaction. But law makes the majority of reactions, non-existant. And as the overcrowding of our prisons suggests, law is not a successful deterant. Which is why I believe in anarchy. Not only is punishment by law inaccurate. But it is also ineffective. Being punished by the reaction of your victim, however, it is accurate as it will be based on the offense caused to them. And it is effective because it is unpredictable. You govern yourself. The only thing stopping such a system working, is there are too many fucking pussy's out there. Too many people unwilling to act when forsaken. They let the law handle it. But what anarchy in essence is, is a return to evolutionary practise. A return to survival of the fittest. The stronger and the fitter you are, the greater your ability to hand-down punishment. And the greater your ability to do that, the more power that you hold. That opposed to todays society, which has taken power from the strongest, and given it to the most ruthlessly selfish.

And for some reason, in a society void of the desire to evolve, every life is valued. I'm assuming that an almost anti-life statement like that, ignites some level of controversy. An almost Hitleresque statement. It's not that I'm an anti-life person. I'm just not a pro-life person. I don't stand by the accepted view that every human life needs to be valued. Murder, is the very essense of life. That might sound a little crazy, but each and every living thing, plant or animal, survives on the death of others. Carnivores survive on the murder of other animals. Herbivores survive on the murder of plants. Even plants kill each other in competition for nutrients. And where do those nutrients come from? Well a lot of them come from compost. Shit. And what is shit? It's the remains of all the dead animals that the carnivoes ate. The murder of other creatures, is how we prolong our own existence. Just today, I'm probably indirectly responsible for the death of at least one chicken, and fuck-knows how many plants. I've only been up about 9 hours, and I've already had 5 or 6 meals. It's how we survive. So I want to know how every living person, is responsible for the death of so many other creatures daily. Yet somehow, every human life has become valued. Maybe it's a naturally present belief within us. That nature has us born with a desire to protect our own species. Or maybe, like capitalism, it's another glitch, another fuck-up, from the evolution of society.

The way I see it, we're all in, what I'll term, a web of care. Through communication, we all know someone else. We all care about someone else. And if you connected every person that you care about, with every person that they care about, with every person that they care about, etc., etc., then we're all interlocked within a web of people that we care about. A bit like how we'll all soon be connected by the worldwide web, we're all already connected by a web of care. And because we don't want to suffer the emotional heartache of losing someone we care about, then we don't want to see the death of anyone, because indirectly, we will care about that person. You will be connected, somehow, to nearly every person whom dies. And you know that you could be the next one to experience the heartache. So we build up these barriers to protect ourselves from the prospect of having to deal with death. We all know it's coming. But we like to hide from the fact that our loved ones will die. We want to postpone the inevitable for as long as possible. We want to prevent human death, because it's something that we're scared of. That's something bourne out of communication. And what this has led to, is an abolute belief that any human death is a tragedy. That any human death deserves mourning. When in reality, everyone of us is responsible for murder every single day. It's just we've created a barrier to a death of our own species. And in this fear of inter-species dying, we've halted evolution. There is no more, survival of the fittest. And when you think about it, as heartless as it is to say, with the acceptance of the weak into our species, we're evolving as a weaker and weaker animal. Protecting demographics whom would not survive in a Darwinian environment, ie the handicapped, we are just evolving ourselves into a weaker and weaker species.

Now I'm not saying we should go about killing off the weak. I'm not saying that we're right or wrong in protecting them. I'm merely pointing out, that as undesirable a consequence as it is to admit to, the protection of the weak, is evolving us as a weaker species. It's one of those consequences that people will look away from. Because it's preferable to ignore it, than to face it. Like global warming. Everytime we drink a bottle of coca-cola, we're harming the environment. We're contributing to climate change. And who knows, that bottle of Coke that you drank last year, could have been the straw that broke the camels back, and triggered the Burma cyclone. But it's much nicer to dismiss the concept that we are all indirectly responsible for the thousands of deaths from natural disaters, than face the reality of it. And in the same light, people don't want to accept that fact that we currently overpopulate the earth. The West like to claim it does all it can to cure AIDS in Africa. But does it? We have the resources to get the best drugs to every affected victim. But do we? Of course not. The people at the top don't get to where they are by being dumb. They're realistic in their assessment of the realities of the world that we live in. And the reality, is that we already overpopulate the planet. As a species we cannot populate the planet to the extent that we do for a prolonged period of time. Living in the close proximities that we do, causes disease. And using the resources that we do, causes climate change. In turn, triggering natural disasters. Nature is already trying to kill us off. And the people in power know this. And one way or another, we cannot carry on in these numbers, as a species. And we're going to be downsized, one way or another. If diseases don't decrease numbers, then natural disasters will. And being in power, is all about control. What do those with the power, living in the West, have more ability to control? AIDS, or natural disasters? Obviously AIDS. It is predominantly affecting Africa. And most of the people who contract it within the West, do so by partaking in avoidable actions. So living in the West, you can make the choice, by your lifestyle, not to contract AIDS. Can you make the choice about where the next global warming triggered natural disaster hits though? The next hurricane Katrina? You have no power over it. And because we cannot exist in our current numbers, those in power, are making an educated decision, that why take the risk with global warming, when carbon emissions will be lowered if we simply let some sick people die? The less people there are, the less people are contributing to global warming. And although that might not be a nice reality to face, it's the reality none-the-less. It's something that people will avoid admitting to. But that doesn't make it any less of a reality. The West are very evidently unwilling to defer to a lower-carbon lifestyle. I came across a Facebook group yesterday outraged that they now had to ask, or even pay for, a plastic bag at the supermarket. There is resistance to any level of lower-carbon change, because it's an inconvenience. And because of this unwillingness to change, this inconvenience, someone has to die. Either it can be a global warming lottery, where everyone could face the bullet. Or we go with the choice that those with the power have made, and just refuse to help those excluded from our society. Refuse to help those dying of AIDS, for example. If they die, then we can continue to use plastic bags at the supermarket, and drink Coca-cola everyday. Because that is the trade-off that we're making.

And you may make the argument that those most affected from AIDS are also the lowest producers of carbon emissions. But they still use some. And although slower than the rest of the world, they're still evolving as society. And as they still evolve, they will continue to use more. Kill them off, and it's almost a pre-emptive strike against their inevitable increse of greater carbon emissions. If we don't kill them off, then us using less bags at the supermarket, and driving hybrid cars, will be negated by their evolution as a society of carbon producers. Which probably isn't a nice way to look the world. Especially if, as most people do, you value life to a greater degree than I do. But if not, then explain to me why, if they really wanted them to live, doesn't the US government just dip its paws into the accounts of Microsoft, and Wal-Mart, and Coca-cola, and take out the money it needs to fund AIDS cures for Africa? What? Would it not be fair on Coca-cola to do that? That's right. Can't do anything to piss off Coca-cola now can we.

There's a lot of speculation in there. No one would ever admit to letting people die. That's essentially murder. And that would defer from the law that we're supposed to respect. And it would defer from societical values. So never would people admit to their willingness to allow people to die. Just as the general public would never admit that their selfish lifestyles trigger the natural disasters that kill tens of thousands every year. But looking at things from an outside perspective; if I was an alien doing an assessment of earth, that is how I would see things. Probably not the nicest way to view the world. But it's sugar-coating reality with niceties that has us in the shit as it is.


Home Back to travel blog Back to top Print this blog