Politics, Religion, and Sex

Those who are different, change the world. Those who are the same, keep it that way.

The momentum of our changing world is driven by controversy and compromise. Change cannot happen without discussion and disagreement.

There are three things that society advises against discussing in polite company: Politics, Religion, and Sex.
In the spirit of investigation and progress, I am going to discuss why I question that logic. I do think there is an appropriate time and place for all things, however I think that the priorities and concerns with the discussion of these "taboos" have been so confused that there is no longer any room for the important intelligent discourse which drives discovery and change.

POLITICS
I would like to begin with the topic of Politics. By the very nature of what it is, Politics is a public matter. Your political opinion -- whether educated or ignorant -- affects us all through the magic of democracy. It is, therefore, very important that we all nurture mature and well-informed political opinions. That doesn't mean that I think that everyone should always stand atop a stump and proclaim their opinions to the world; in fact, I think that practice is part of the problem with the discussion (and practice) of politics. When did being right become more important than doing right?

Standing atop a stump or screaming in someone's face will never produce change. Remember what I said in my most recent article? "I learned years ago that you cannot change to a new system through confrontation or arrogance; you change through education in the new system while simultaneously slowly moving the old practice toward obsolescence." Education is the best way to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the idea/opinion currently held and the idea/opinion you would like to see.

I propose that political discourse is appropriate wherever a willing person or group is found. Please take note of the word "willing"; I've discussed previously that it's always important to me that a person's choices not interfere with the choices or freedoms of others. So, handing out pamphlets is acceptable, but physically stopping a person from carrying out their choices is definitely not. You should attempt to educate, not alienate.

RELIGION
With Religion, things get a bit more tricky. I think Religious preference is a personal choice and therefore should only be announced or discussed within familiar circles. I think it is fine that one would become excited about their personal choices, but it is very important that it be recognized and accepted that no one else should have to agree.

Quiet presentation is really the only appropriate method. Religion is generally something coached and conditioned throughout life, so it's deeply set. If you wish to discuss religion, I suggest that you spend more time asking questions than you do making your own statements. All-too-often a person will push a religious (or anti-religious) opinion which would not have been said without the religious pretense. Simplified, this is the "No offense, but..." approach to discussion. You hear someone say this and you already know that what they're about to say is wholly insulting, but they think a passive-aggressive statement will be less abrasive.

Recognizing my initial point that religion is a personal choice and should be mutually respected, should eliminate the desire to "change minds" and instead promote an intelligent exercise in listening and understanding.

SEX
Sex is a topic which I think American society has gotten completely backwards. The typical American family is frightened to discuss the topic, so they wish a class into schools to discuss it. The schools, in turn, have to dance around the two previous taboos (Politics and Religion) as they explain something perfectly natural to a classroom full of curious adolescents and/or teenagers.

In the home, a discussion about sexual choices should be as comfortable as a discussion about religion. Why is it that some parents can tell a child about one man murdering another (Cain and Abel), but they can't talk about eggs and sperm? What's worse is that this lack of communication is a learned behavior; sex has become an exercise in shame, instead of an exercise in relational interaction. Similar to religion, I think that sexual interaction is a personal choice. As long as that interaction does not hinder the freedoms or choices of another person, it is not something to be hidden or shamed.

So, how do people learn? If they don't already understand something, such as the example of a room full of students in a high school class, where do people turn when they want to learn? By building this wall of shame and taboo, we've prevented a healthy investigative process. It's important that this type of discourse happens first among friends and family (a place of already-known safety). Not only do you strengthen the feeling of trust for the individuals involved, but you have also possibly introduced new questions to a place where ideas and opinions have a tendency to stagnate.

The fascinating fact about discourse is that ideas and opinions change. The discussion of these topics through considerate exchange is the only way to truly evaluate the strength and logic of our ideas and opinions. However, one must recognize that these topics are tied closely with personal identification and security, so it is a horrible violation if you do not first ASK if you may talk about the topic of choice.

Furthermore, if someones decides they're done with the conversation, then it's over. Thank them for their willingness to participate in whatever fashion they already have (e.g. taking a paper, a few minutes of questions, sharing their opposing opinion). It's time to show some respect in discussion, maybe that'll change our mood about beginning them.

Normality has been restored

An hour ago, the last clocks in the Northern Hemisphere were freed from Daylight Saving Time (DST). Sadly, there are some in the Southern hemisphere which have recently began their ritual of madness; for them I offer consolation with my article on "Why I hate Daylight Saving Time".

I am content to be rid of the odd adjustment for a few months and was set on climbing atop my soapbox and repeating a few of the reasons why you should be too. However, I noticed something this last week which gave me a bit of satisfaction. Discussions (both online and off) about DST have turned largely to criticism. I would overhear people on the bus who were "glad that Daylight Saving Time would be over soon, so that they could have their mornings back". I read many postings through social media of friends complaining of the troubles they had starting their day due to the dark mornings.

You see, DST was extended in the United States in 2007 by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 introduced by Joe Barton, Texas Republican and member of the Tea Party caucus. It should come as no surprise that Joe Barton was a consultant for an Oil and Gas company [Joe Barton - House.gov]. Barton has also been involved interfering in matters of environmental protection. Joe's Act was a success, by the way, a boon for the corporations interested in shifting consumers home earlier in the Summer afternoon (meaning, more AC) and awake earlier in the Winter morning (meaning, more heating). I'm going to stop myself here though about the involvement of energy corporations, mainly because it's all been said already and -- to my satisfaction -- I think most people get it now. (See my article in 2008: "Ditch Daylight Saving Time".)

Observers of DST have a bit of a conundrum, similar to many other system we're seeing protested these days, we're all subjected to the system as long as we continue to participate in it. Unlike oppressive big-brother governments, big financial institutions, and mass food-chains, time isn't just something we can institute locally; in fact it's actually federally prohibited in the USA [Gazette, The (Colorado Springs)]. It was that inability that caused me to realize something about Daylight Saving Time which I hadn't considered before: the practice of DST is similar to the use of the US measurement system. Meaning, it's hardened into the minds of its participants.

In dealing with Metrication, I learned years ago that you cannot change to a new system through confrontation or arrogance; you change through education in the new system while simultaneously slowly moving the old practice toward obsolescence. By the time you suggest removing the old system, most people (which is what matters in democracy) don't care if you do because they've been primarily using the new one anyway. For DST, this means that behaviors have to be changed in such a way that it won't matter what "time" it really is. In keeping with my choice in March, I am still going to avoid telling you how you might choose to spend your day, but I will tell you what I've chosen to do for myself.

Daylight Saving Time is all about "moving daylight". Repeating some text from eight months ago:

The idea of Daylight Saving Time is to make the most of the hours of daylight available during the Summer. That's fantastic! Unfortunately, people use DST as a crutch to hobble a few days of good feelings out of "more" daylight. You've heard this before, but I'll say it again: If you want more daylight, then use it when it's there. Consistently.

All of this shift is around the accepted "9 to 5 day". In a "9 to 5 day", 13:00 (1pm) is made the center point. I thought that was odd, considering noon (12:00) is supposed to be midday, so I chose to rethink my "day" as beginning at 8, thus I reset my midday to 12:00. Under DST, "high noon" occurs at 13:00 for nearly 75% of the year. (You can imagine how much that screws up how to "Tell time using the Sun or Moon".)

Greenwich GB Daylight Chart - Wikipedia

Now, my shift in thinking does not mean that I get to leave my job sooner, nor does it mean that I always greet my alarm with happiness in the morning. Similar to my state-of-mind with measurement -- where I use SI (aka Metric) in my head, but convert for the convenience of others in conversation -- I still participate in the daily schedules of those around me. Work is work and if you're lucky enough to have a job right now, you work the hours to which you and your employer agree upon. I do enjoy at least one advantage though, because of my choice I have freed myself from the lock-step of the populace. My choice to change my thinking allows me to shift my non-work activities to whatever feels right for me: I'm able to get in a bit of exercise, while the "9-to-5er" is just waking up; I can stop by the store on a dark Winter morning instead of dodging shopping carts in the aisles in the afternoon.

Another reason that this works well for me is that other parts of society have shifted as well. In the hopes of drawing more customers and more revenue, businesses have been lengthening their hours of operation; some banks are now opening an hour earlier than they did years ago and some retail stores even earlier than that. The minds and traditions of society have also adapted, the American dinner hour used to be 18:00 (6pm), enough time for the bread-winning father to stroll through the door after his 9-to-5 and sit down at the dinner table with his patiently-waiting wife and two or three kids. Now, due to the prevalence and popularity of "primetime television", meal times have been shifted earlier. Besides, now father is expected to help out after the meal and if anyone in that household expects to do anything after dinner that evening, the meal will shift earlier out of necessity.

You see, our observance of DST isn't only about time, it's about lifestyle and tradition. And the beauty of humanity is how we change and adapt, replacing old tools and techniques with new technology and better understood ideas. Don't get too comfortable with those new ideas though, they'll change eventually too.

Privacy and control

Technology is everywhere, always watching, always tracking, and always within reach. Meaning, our gadgets have or will be taking on qualities commonly associated with gods: omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. In the 2006 film V for Vendetta, a man wearing a Guy Fawkes mask fought against the control of an oppressive system. As a result of that film, "the use of stylised Guy Fawkes masks, with moustache and pointed beard, has become widespread internationally among groups protesting against politicians, banks and financial institutions. The masks both conceal the identity of individuals and demonstrate their commitment to a shared cause." [Guy Fawkes Mask - Wikipedia]

Amazon.com: V For Vendetta Mask

Some people view the rise of our god-like technology with terror; should we thus all dawn Guy Fawkes' masks and attempt to hide from our digital overlords? Or should we accept and embrace this fact and attempt to mold it?

I recently watched the TED talk "FBI, here I am!" by Hasan Elahi, an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland and an interdisciplinary media artist.
In the talk, Hasan articulates his opinion -- with which I agree -- on data, privacy, and control:

"I've come to the conclusion that the way you protect your privacy -- particularly in an era where everything is catalogued and everything is archived and evething is recorded -- there's no need to delete information anymore. So, what do you do when everything is out there? Well, you have to take control of it. If I give you this information directly, it's a very different type of identity than if you were to try and go through a get bits and pieces."

I welcome the discerning consumption of information, as I discussed in my previous article touching on the subject of "A Hierarchy to Understanding". So, as the omnipresent technology logs my words, locations, and activities, it gathers a glimpse of my identity, but what you see is not the whole of what makes me who I am. To echo some of Hasan's words, "In this barrage of noise that I'm putting out, I actually live an incredibly anonymous and private life; you know very little about me, actually."

Consider this: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. These are the beginnings of how we gather data; the investigative questions we all learn at an early age.
An outside observer can only gather some data through their own perspective: Who, What, When, Where, and How. You'll notice though that a fundamental question cannot be answered with dry data: Why. If you've been reading recently, you'll know that the "Why" is of highest importance when it comes to understanding and actualization. The "Why" is what is formed individually. It is the "Why" that creates our psychology, personality, opinions, motivations, cravings, and connections.

I am unafraid of the omnipresence of technology because I am more than the facts and data amassed. I choose not to attempt to hide the cataloging of my data because I try to never act without intention. Let me be entirely clear about another opinion I have of data and surveillance as it relates to freedom. There are those who would choose to use the gathering of data as a way to prevent others from having the freedom to act of their own will. This is never OK. In my opinion, a person should be allowed to act however they choose; as long as those actions do not prevent another person from making their own -- possibly opposing -- choice.

I also acknowledge the courage of those who choose to exercise their own freedoms even if those choices result in consequences born of ill-conceived systems of control. (Again, I reiterate that the initial choice must not hinder the freedoms of others.) For example, it is currently illegal (meaning, there is a law on the books) to drive a black car on Sundays in Denver, Colorado. In my opinion, choosing to drive a black car on Sunday does not take away the freedom of others. Therefore, I respect those individuals who choose to ignore such a strange law and drive their vehicle of choice on Sunday. Let it also be said that I greatly respect the law enforcement officers who choose to ignore the law and therefore do not enforce the legal penalty currently dictated by the system.

In this technology-dominated world, true privacy is a result of control and intention. Some may choose to disseminate the details of their every bathroom visit, others may choose to disclose nothing, but the nature of self is not in what you do and who is aware of it; it is in why you do it and how you define yourself as a result. In actuality, I know no more about the "Shitter Twitter" [Urban Dictionary] than I do about the man hiding behind the figurative curtain, what I do know is how they have chosen to present themselves to me. The beauty of freedom is that you may choose to disagree with me on any and all of this and I respect your choice to do so.

A Hierarchy to Understanding

There are a great many quotations and musings which have been said throughout time about the subject of knowledge and understanding. A while back I came across a graphical presentation of something the artist called the "Hierarchy of Understanding" [Information is Beautiful].

Much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs [Wikipedia], David McCandless graphically presents the idea that wisdom comes from baser forms of information. Data begets Information which begets Knowledge which begets Wisdom. It's a fascinating thought exercise as well as a beautiful depiction of what I think is an important message: seek out the source!

If Wisdom is the culmination of experiential Knowledge, then finding the sources of that knowledge becomes an important exercise in understanding. All too often people will spread information without considering its source, truth, or purpose. In such a networked world, that is a very dangerous thing. If we wish to consume so much information, then I suggest that we become connoisseurs of it; carefully sampling each tidbit and weighing its value for further consumption.

Consider my suggestion of Metrication Day 2011 that it is always good to ask the question "Why?":

Science is about exploration; to gain an understanding about the things we do not know. No one source will ever answer all questions. Think for yourself and seek a deeper understanding. Perhaps it's that too many, as children, were given the answer "Because I said so" whenever they asked "Why?" Personally, I have and will always answer any child's question of "Why?" with my best answer, or, at the very least, "That's a great question, let's find that answer together".

You would not devour a meal before minimally evaluating its edibility, therefore I also encourage you to carefully consider what intellectually digest before you risk poisoning your reason and wisdom.

The tipping point of 7 billion

According to research on population density and growth [Science Magazine] this year, estimates are that the human population will reach 7 billion sometime in the next two weeks. You will recall that I began this year with an article discussing the importance of valuing our balance with the planet and the fellow inhabitants of it. The moment for each of us to recognize our place as one of 7 billion is nearly upon us.

As I detailed in another article at the mid-point of this year, "we need to also open our minds to the diversity and beauty of what it means to be human". Each human on this wonderful planet is an organism of unique evolutionary elegance. As we approach 7 billion, I implore you, each reader, to recognize how much you value your community (family, friends, etc.) and also accept that every person -- friend or foe -- has a community which they also treasure and value.

Try to take a step back in your own mind; imagine that you can look through another person's eyes. Especially when making decisions which will affect another being or a community of beings, consider what actions you would wish to have taken toward your own community. Some choices do result in necessary consequence, but weigh the necessity of each reaction upon the quality of the action. In a group as large as our global human community is about to become, it is far too easy to become detached from the very ethics and connections which make us distinctly human.

[sounce]

Consider this, "between now and 2050 the world population will increase by 2.3 billion" [Singularity Hub].
With such drastic growth coming, excercising empathy and understanding will become paramount. Our technological, data-driven world, separates us from the human interaction. Consider your community, consider your network of connections, value every human you meet, greet, email, link, like, or poke. We are each one in 7 billion; meaning, we our each unique and different, but we are also each as inconsequential as the people we choose to ignore.

Browser Choice and Competition

Years ago, I wrote an article arguing for the choice of a better browser [Browse Happy] than Microsoft Internet Explorer [Microsoft]. At the time, my choice was Mozilla Firefox [Mozilla], based on standards conformance [W3C] and customization.

Mozilla had a significant impact on the web browser market with Firefox. It wedged a large enough gap in Internet Explorer's market share that it popularized the idea of browser choice. This in-turn enticed others to enter to the browser competition.

Through those years, I have continued to make my choice of browser based on my own personal preference. For a long time Firefox was my primary browser, but I also chose to continuously play with others as well. I tried Opera [Opera] and was very impressed with its speed and clean interface. I also enjoyed Google Chrome's [Google] minimalism and process management. Eventually, Chrome's growing feature set lured me to make it my primary browser. In fact, I have enjoyed Chrome almost exclusively ever since; that is, until it began crashing a couple weeks ago.

Now, let me first say that -- as of the publishing of this article -- I have already diagnosed and repaired the cause of those crashes. (Mainly because I was finally able to take some time to do so.) However, when the first set of crashes occurred, I noticed something interesting about my behavior: I switched without effort or anguish to another browser, after determining that the problem would take too much effort to resolve at that time.

After observing my quick switch, I thought for a moment about how that sentiment reflected a change in our use of web browsers. Months ago, I had planned to eventually write an article discussing the current state of the browser market [W3C], but -- thanks to better standards compliance and the spread of "cloud" services -- the browser with the biggest market share no longer matters as much as the browser with the most appealing features and best performance.

It's a brave new world in web browsers. As someone who once pushed for a "better browser", I am very happy to see that the competition has made the goal of all browsers to meet the needs and desires of the user.

Metrication Day 2011

Today (October 10th) is Metrication Day! Metrication Day is a day on which I make a slightly more concerted effort to spread the knowledge and adoption of the International System of Units (a.k.a SI or the Metric System). Last year's Metrication Day was what I called the "Ultimate Metrication Day" and I dedicated 10 days of articles to the cause of metric education. Education is the subject which I'd like to focus on this year.

First, a narrative:

Having long put Imperial units out of my head, I recently asked someone how many ounces were in a cup. He and I had discussed my affinity for SI previously, so he tried to poke fun at my question. However, he couldn't actually answer my question. Was it 4? 8? No, that's not right, maybe 6? I stood there laughing as he ran to his computer and pulled it up. He tried to make sense of it, but then noticed that cups were different all over the world.

I pointed out that his confusion was a perfect example of why Imperial measurements are both impractical and confusing. He went on to say that he "was not a good example of a typical American" and criticized his own intelligence. I pointed out to him that his lack of understanding was actually very typical of American scientific knowledge.

Science education in the United States is critically failing. Note these survey results from an article published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

An understanding of the most basic principles of science appear to be lacking. There are many reasons and possible causes for educational failure in the United States, but I don't want to "blame the system(s)" in this article; I'd like to instead put the ownership in the hands of each individual. You have the power to ask "WHY?"

Science is about exploration; to gain an understanding about the things we do not know. No one source will ever answer all questions. Think for yourself and seek a deeper understanding. Perhaps it's that too many, as children, were given the answer "Because I said so" whenever they asked "Why?" Personally, I have and will always answer any child's question of "Why?" with my best answer, or, at the very least, "That's a great question, let's find that answer together".

Holding to an established system, instead of asking "why" is a primary cause for why the United States has not adopted the Metric system. There is literal stupidity in the notion that tradition will be held to for tradition's sake. Never accept "because I said so"; find a better source, one which will help nurture your curiosity not belittle it. Explore the world around you, excite your mind with interest, accept the dynamic nature of "fact", and wonder at the beauty of information. When you do ask why, you will see that the benefits of adopting SI far out-weigh the costs.

I am an Alchemist

On this date seven years ago, I revealed the INDY.CC website. In conclusion to a statement welcoming visitors, I wrote the phrase: "No matter what you choose to do here, remember one thing: VITRIOL! It is within ourselves that we discover the greatest wonders of the universe." I believe it's time that I reveal the deeper meaning behind it.

I am an Alchemist.

I have been for many years; that is to say, I've studied aspects of Alchemy for a long while. My curiosity in it began more than ten years ago. For a while I learned what I could on my own, developing an greater interest in what it was and what it wasn't.

It's repeated often that "when the student is ready, the teacher appears"; that's how it was for my apprenticeship in Alchemy. Consistent with Alchemy for thousands of years, I was taught by a master Alchemist who was taught by a master Alchemist. I learned how to interpret and understand the imagery, practices, and phrases of Alchemy. After some time, my teacher informed me that I was no longer a student, I was an Alchemist myself.

The word vitriol, to an Alchemist, is layered with meaning. It is a name given to sulfuric acid. It is a synonym for "bitterness". Most of all, it is an acronym for the Latin "Visita Interiora Terrae Rectificando Inveniens Occultum Lapidem", translated "Visit the interior of the Earth, set things right to find the hidden stone". As with many things in life, the meaning is not literal; it means to look within ourselves to find our potential/purpose/life.

Alchemy isn't a science, an art, a magic, a cult, a religion; it is humanity, it is us. It is the study of our essence, our balance between what we Alchemists call the Above and Below (enlightenment and instinct). Alchemists study many aspects, I chose to focus on the psychological, the balance and power of the mind.

Recently, I have felt very out of focus with myself. I see life as an adventurous journey, a travel through mountains, valleys, oceans, and deserts. One should never expect that life is a calm level walk along the beach; in fact, I embrace the excitement of the adventure. However, there are times where it consumes me. It is at those times where I need to look to others to help me refocus and retrace my steps back to the path I had intended for my adventure.

Alchemy means a great deal to me, but it's not something I speak about often. The Alchemy section of my website has been oddly vacant for 7 years. Some of my closest friends have expressed an interest in what it could mean to them, but I've shrugged away that request in the past. Today, on my 28th birthday, I hope that this post will help me to begin revealing that part of myself.

What If Aliens Came To Save the Galaxy From Mankind?

In an article on Slashdot, with the same titled as this one "What If Aliens Came To Save the Galaxy From Mankind?" [Slashdot], different scenarios of extra-terrestrial encounters are discussed. One suggests that aliens would come to Earth to exterminate us in order to protect the galactic whole.

It's an interesting thought, fun to consider, but the most enjoyable part of this recent Slashdot post was a very creative comment/mini-post made by the user lexsird [Slashdot] in which the user suggests "It already happened" [Slashdot].

Aliens did land here to destroy us, but they were small and insect like and the bug exterminator guy killed their entire galactic fleet, thinking they were some "weirdo bug infestation". A second attempt was tried by another species, and aquatic one, but it got ate by sharks. A third one came, land based and they were bigger, but were ate by the wild life. A fourth came and the RF that we are immune to quickly burned out their brains, and they too were ate by wild life.

A mechanical race came and was destroyed by a thunderstorm, when a bolt of lightning struck their ship and it exploded. Of course there have been several small missions which end up in races being consumed by just the biological aspects of our planet. Germs, viruses, and an assortment of microbes tend to make short work of them if they don't use the proper environmental protocols.

Not to mention we are a biological weapon to 99.9999999% of the species in the known universe. Many in the galaxy speculate that the "creator" an extra dimensional entity that instilled the creation codes, was being some kind of a dickhead when he instilled the planetary creation code for this planet. Many speculate and fear that we are doomsday weapon made by said "creator", some want to destroy us, others think we have some special link with the "creator" and should just stay away at least.

Considering we breath poisoned gas, we are mostly water, which is a universal solvent that eats through many species on contact. We live near oceans of water which scare most species. We are larger than most species by far and are physically more capable. We have lived in a constant state of war with each other since before our history, hence we are really good at it and durable, some how we fight each other so hard, yet our species is over populated. Which is a terrifying aspect of us, we breed so fast compared to most species.

Most species pray that we will just kill ourselves off. Others are convinced we will achieve the technology to travel about the universe, hence over running it in a matter of eons. But it's galactic law that nobody gives us any aid, and any species that tries to cultivate us is punished. Often rich juveniles from a species will buzz Planet Earth to impress a mate or mates, only to get shot down, spotted or crash; many escape, but its still risky behavior that if caught gets severe punishments.

Mostly we are immune to solar radiation, in fact we bath in it to get a tan. Our Sun puts out enough EMP to burn up the nervous system of some delicate species before they even get near Earth. Our skin though we think it's thin in contrast to some of the beasts of the planet, is incredible to most species. It's chemical resistant, radiation resistant, and waterproof which baffles everyone. Shooting an Earthling with an alien water cannon only amuses them. They in fact stole several water cannons and reproduce them as toys under the "Super Soaker" line. An Earthling child with a water gun chills the bones of the hardiest of galactic warriors.

Lastly, what we can eat is frightening as well. What we eat and drink frightens most species away alone. Most of them would be on our dinner plate, as a delicacy. Not to mention our waste byproducts are the most foul bits of toxic waste in the universe. They have watched us poke and prod everything on our planet and try to eat it. We have even ate each other, which is a horror that most minds can't comprehend in the universe. Not to mention we skin other species and wear them as clothes and trophies.

Then some have tried to understand us, they have figured out that TV is some form of entertainment to us, not educational, not some history archive. This process drove many species insane. One species was found in some insane collective nightmare after watching Gilligan's Island episodes, they fell into some logic loop and have been catatonic as a species ever since. They have concluded that we as a species are quite insane and it's illegal to attempt to figure us out psychologically.

Its now been a much debated subject of trying to destroy Earth. Most figure its an impossibility and that we will do it ourselves. Others fear failure and we will at last notice, get angry and come hunt them down. The last species made it all the way to Earth's orbit only to get pelted with micro meteors, lost EMP shields, then burned up in the atmosphere. It's always bad luck coming here.

What a fantastic and fun evaluation of our interaction with the world (and Universe) around us. To the user lexsird, if you're reading this, thank you for your few minutes of creative musing.

This is your Life

[About holstee.com]

As it says, live your dream and share your passion.