Francis Mont's Blog, page 4

An undeniable proof that money and profit based Capitalism is insane

About the negative oil prices, finally I saw an article that explains what it means in practical terms:

“In practical terms, this means that anybody who is supposed to receive a shipment of American crude but doesn’t want it will have to pay somebody else to take it. How come? Because we are literally running out of places to put all of the extra oil we’re not using.”

AND THEY ARE STILL PUMPING IT!!!

The human species is ripe for extinction.

See https://slate.com/business/2020/04/oi...

PS. At least we don't have to worry about the virus or climate change killing us. We'll drown in oil long before that.

‘Real’ versus ‘Unreal’

The current pandemic highlights the age old conflict between ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ in the human context.

‘Real’ are those things that do exist in nature – which is all of reality: food chain, housing, hospitals, ICU beds, ventilators, power plants, toilet paper, schools, transportation, communication, health care and many, many other things. Now add two more things: viruses and climate change.

‘Unreal’ are all those fictitious things that humans made up, out of thin air, to aid in their age old domination games in various forms of social organizations, now the most weird of them all: ‘Capitalism’, in order to create slums and palaces.

One very short list of ‘unreal’ is “banks, interest rates, currency supply, tax-cuts, subsidies, grants, off-shore accounts, inflation, recession, deficit-financing, leveraged buyouts, credit-rating, hostile takeovers, toxic assets, derivatives, stocks, bonds, investment portfolios and CEO compensation packages.”

This conflict was highlighted for me by an article I read this morning about how some Canadian provinces won’t be able to pay their health care workers, in the middle of a pandemic, because they have exhausted their “borrowing capacity”. See https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...

All this crazy conflict is represented and artificially maintained by humanity’s craziest invention, as I described it in a previous blog. See at: https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

The clear mirror of COVID-19.

The mirror was invented so human beings could see their own reflection, as it is observed by others. It helps us see the blemishes we’d rather not think about but clearly visible to anyone who cares to look. The receding hairline, the pimples, the uneven teeth, the wrinkles. Once we see them, we can do something to improve the image, make corrections.

Every now and then the human species is given an opportunity, usually self-created, to observe itself, with all the blemishes it never wanted to see. The current pandemic is one of the best global mirrors I have ever seen. It was brought into focus for me by the designation of working citizens into ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’ categories. Essentials are those who are needed to provide us with food and shelter, heat and light, medical aid and clean water. Half a dozen that we need for comfortable survival. They are a small minority of the work force.

The ‘non-essentials’ are those who produce Barbie dolls, e-cigarettes, 'monetary instruments', pawn shops and skyscrapers. I would have added weapons of mass destruction, but I hesitated because recently the American President designated gun manufacturers and gun retail stores “essential part of critical infrastructure”.

This mirror shows us, with blinding clarity, what is, and isn’t, essential. What we should support with all of our resources, all of our energies. The rest is luxury at best, harmful and destructive props for our addiction to some aspect of the domination game human beings have indulged in since the dawn of civilization.

The least you could expect from a sane species would be valuing their essential workers by giving them everything they need for their task and well-being. Instead we see them working long and hard hours, often even without protective gear or adequate tools, while many of them worry about being able to pay the rent and feed their kids. At the same time useless parasites of our super rich wallow in obscene luxury.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?

PS. As the 'other' Donald (Rumsfeld) said to the soldier who complained about lack of equipment: "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want". At least the current Donald (Trump) has not insulted the nurses and doctors yet in a similar way (to the best of my knowledge)

The main message of “Saved in Time”

“The novel has two important messages for the reader. The more obvious one is the suggestion that in our current geopolitical reality resurgence of totalitarian fascism is a real possibility. The other, more subtle message is: A stable, sustainable social organization can not be based on any hierarchical domination-structure such as have ever been tried in human history – they are all inherently self destructive. Any working social organization must be a consensus-based anarchy (as described in the Atlantis chapters) and, for that to be possible, we have to deal with our species-wide genetic brain disorder that drives individuals toward an ultimately suicidal and self destructive domination strategy. If humanity manages to weed these individuals out by education and constant vigilance, the human species may have a chance to avoid extinction.”

For specifics on consensus-based anarchy, read Noam Chomsky (the most brilliant American intellectual ever) on Anarchism. One link: https://bigthink.com/politics-current... The historical examples quoted all failed for the same reason: no one dealt with "our species-wide genetic brain disorder that drives individuals toward an ultimately suicidal and self destructive domination strategy. " Until it's done, every noble experiment will be corrupted and destroyed by those suffering from the dominating-brain-affliction. (As more and more people use the 'insane' word repeatedly these days.)

What's funny about reviews.

It took me a while to find out that you can't please everybody. Very often what one reviewer likes, some others will hate and vice versa. And, another special case is when the reviewer is an author him/herself. Every author I ever encountered has very definite ideas on how an intriguing premise should have been developed. Every writer (myself included) always wants to rewrite a book just read and that is completely natural. Then, the question is why do we seek reviews? Maybe it helps sell copies if enough people liked the story. I don't know because I never write to sell copies, I do it for the pleasure the creative process gives me. And this pleasure is not diminished by a bad review. In writing the last novel I had one definite purpose: I wanted to raise awareness about serious danger threatening the world by populist demagogues gaining power all over the world. Now that I have done that, I'll go back writing science that I actually know a lot about. But, still, the occasional review trickling in still makes me chuckle about how the same thing means different, often opposite, things to reviewers This is beautifully demonstrated by the seventeen 4-5 star and five 1-2 star ratings my last novel received to date..

Communication...

Well, I have had my fling with fiction - short stories, novellas and, finally, two full-size novels. In all of these I was trying to communicate rather than to entertain, to somehow get across the most important lessons I have learnt in a long and adventurous life. I have now realized that trying to do it with fiction isn't the most efficient way to go about it. Most readers want to be entertained rather than 'preached' at and I can't blame them.

So, after this detour on fiction-land I'll go back doing what I began with: write about science to illustrate how we go about critical thinking and write poetry to illustrate how things affect us beyond our defenses. It may not work as I am hoping it might, but it will be a LOT less work, for sure.
At my age, less work is definitely a desirable goal.

The State of the Union

To avoid misunderstanding, I’m not talking about the USA, but rather the UHS –Union of the Human Species. In this age of the Internet and mass communication we are bombarded by news daily from every corner of the planet and it’s impossible to avoid knowing what’s happening to us, human beings. However, the barrage of daily news bouncing off of our individual consciousness prevents us from absorbing and digesting all the data we receive. The daily distractions of the newest mass shootings, stabbing, police brutality, political scandal, sexual assault, environmental disaster, genocide and another war somewhere on the planet affects us like sandblasting affects a crumbling wall – we start crumbling ourselves without noticing it.

As my new-year resolution I stopped watching the news on Jan 1st this year and just let my mind wander around in my head, trying to process all the news I already had received. I wanted to have a feel for our collective consciousness, find out the state of our collective mind. After a month and a half of strict media-diet I have a feel for our emotional state: confusion, fear, anger, panic, hate, evasion, denial, stubbornness and resignation: we are unable and unwilling to make the necessary changes to avoid extinction. We are watching the fast approaching iceberg and our hands are frozen on the tiller, staring at our impending doom, knowing that it can’t be done.

Now that I have done what I had wanted to achieve, I can resume my life: write stories that very few people will read, finish the second volume of my Physics book about how scientists ran into a brick wall in the twentieth century and how we invent gods and epicycles to pretend for ourselves that we are facing reality.

I wish all of us a successful strategy for evading the knowledge that, subconsciously, we already have. I wish a happy new year for all of us.

Dangers inherent in reading groups.

I have been publishing fiction for the last 5 years and, when I discovered Goodreads reading groups and giveaways, I thought it was a terrific way to get feedback on my writing. So it has in many ways. However, I noticed one particular danger: groups turning into a “mutual admiration society”.
This danger was brought into focus for me by one group member complaining:

“I've already received two of my reviews, both terrible, stating that they found the book too violent and graphic….This disheartens me as we are all in the same boat as authors. I thought I could at least find comradery in that regard….I'm reviewing for a fellow author. Regardless of my desire to read their book, I know of their ordeal. I know they put their heart into it and are just trying to get eyes on it.”

This is a dilemma for authors who are assigned books to read and review (not their own choice). If we are not honest with each other, then our feedback is worthless both to the author and to the potential readers.
I hate the rating system because it doesn’t reflect our own opinion accurately – a detailed review should suffice. It also intimidates the reviewer who does not want to hurt a fellow author’s feelings, so we either nudge the rating up or risk giving the author a black eye.

Recently I published a political thriller/sci-fi novel and warned my readers in the blurb: it might ruffle your feathers if your political views are opposed to mine. The reviews I received mirrors exactly what I had expected: the full range from 1-2 star (5) to 4-5 star (9) ratings. The two 1-star reviews trashed absolutely everything about the novel that could be trashed, without a word commenting on the actual story itself.

It never occurred to me to complain about these reviews because, for me, every feedback is valuable, positive or negative. However, I have noticed several reviews of other novels in which the rating was always higher than the actual text review suggested. This is what I meant by the danger of turning into a mutual admiration society. If we are not honest with each other, the whole exercise is pointless.

A Critical X-ray of today’s literature.

It’s interesting to see what writers write about these days. There used to be a time, not so long ago, when writers tackled socially significant topics and pondering ways to solve age old social problems or, at least, highlight the nature of these problems in depth. Voltaire, Moliere, Huxley, and others like them are not with us anymore and I sorely miss their intelligence, wit and philosophical insight. Those times are gone now, or mostly gone, and the majority of currently published novels fall into a category that I call “escape literature”.

There is a revival of horror, fantasy, paranormal (zombies, vampires, etc.) and romance literature. Also, sequels became fashionable - often you see the # sign in titles (like #1, #2, #3, etc.) The classier, more literate novels published deal with individual psychological problems characters have to deal with, but very few ventures into big-picture human issues and even fewer make suggestions on how these problems can be solved.

My favourite genre, science fiction (most suitable for tackling these issues) that once was populated by a Bradbury, Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, Vonnegut, LeGuin and even Roddenberry (Star Trek) is now mostly about Star-War like space operas, shoot-them-up adventures or, characteristically, post-apocalyptic doom and gloom predictions.

It’s very hard to find inspiring, thought provoking novels these days in a literature offering a way out of an increasingly frightening world we live in, and very very seldom ideas for a solution. Maybe, because writers find it hopeless and gave up their historical role of pointing forward to a better future. Pity.

Science fiction writers had it right, all along.

I watched a documentary about AI and automation and what it does to the job market. The experts interviewed all agreed that it is a serious problem without a visible solution. Automation makes more and more jobs vanish and results in more and more people losing their jobs and have to live on social assistance of one kind or another, reduced to shame and poverty. These experts saw no solution in the near future because, as they said, the advancement of technology was inevitable.

In a sane society, you would think that as more and more tasks were performed by machines, people would have to work less to produce the same results, therefore the quality of life would increase overall with more abundant and better quality of goods available, coupled with more leisure time due to the reduced work hours necessary to produce them.

Sci-fi writers have been telling this to them forever, still economic experts couldn’t figure this simple equation out. To quote from my book: “Humane Physics”:

“”…That vision of the future is expressed in Captain Picard’s speech to a group of earthmen from the 20th century, who had been in suspended animation. He told them that money had no meaning in the 24th century, and the only challenge was realizing one’s creative potential (Star Trek The Next Generation, Season 1 episode 26 “The Neutral Zone”).”

If we survive our religious obsession with money, we could realize this simple dream. Only three more centuries to go.