Mentally Obese

I’ll use the ancient politically incorrect connotation of obese to mean someone who is excessively fat from enjoying eating way too much with no regard to health consequences. That may damage an individual, but what I will call a “mentally obese” person may endanger a society .

In a consumer driven culture, most of us are “mentally fat”. We acquire too much and may desire even more. But we have limits to our greed, some self-imposed, some forced on us. Many folks honestly believe that what they do not own cannot be enjoyed. They must possess a thing before they dare appreciate it.

The worst mentally obese people are not simple consumers, but titans of industry. They must have more and more and more regardless of consequence. They think they are “lean and mean” but they are a social tub of lard, wallowing about in plans, risks, and ambitions .

They remind me of Marx’s observation that the end of classic capitalism would result in a few gargantuan monopolies owned and controlled by one survivor each. These days, it is not hard to imagine such a scenario where the CEO has no employees at all – only AI agents. And, for that matter, no CEO .

Perhaps, Marxist dystopia is only a temporary stage. With current IPOs, our mentally obese masters of the universe are well on their way to the ultimate end.

Entitled

Political speech is usually more concerned with connotation than definition. Consider the current polemics about “rights: which are viewed as free, and “entitlements” which cost money. What these words actually mean is best described in the lovely legalistic phrase “normal and customary” .

There are no absolutes. The rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are contradicted by graveyards, prisons, and slums. Entitlements such as pensions are viewed as earned rewards, but tend to include expected safety nets for food clothing shelter and medicine.

The rich, of course, always think that whatever they have is a form of right – granted by God, superiority, hard work. The poor assume society owes them other rights such as education. Everyone considers security and property protection on the fuzzy borderline .

This is where the war of connotation spills into redistribution of wealth. If everyone is entitled to health care, are we infringing on the rights of the well-off by taking away some of their assets? There is no easy answer, although the way politicians twist meanings may make it seem so .

Utopians have always claimed that the problem is simply scarcity. In a world of abundance the difference between what costs money and what does not will vanish .

Perhaps .

I’m not holding my breath .

Babies and Puppies

Advertisers know that big eyes sell. Slap a picture of a baby or a puppy on a product and more people will buy it. Most of us can scarcely resist those cute expressions, and we get a rush of endorphins just looking at them .

Nature probably evolved this in certain mammalian species (especially primates) which have young who require extended care. Humans then tended to breed dogs whose puppies were more appealing. In both cases, the cutest survived.

Social causes have now become deeply entangled with standard advertising. In particular, anti-abortion groups always picture helpless human infants as those being “murdered”. In truth of course most modern abortion involves discarding a lump of mostly formless tissue .

Ah, but the potential… Unsurprisingly anti-abortion never mentions surly teenagers nor terrifying criminals who may result from the rescue.

After babies grow up to be surly teenagers, hardened criminals, nasty insane terrorists, or just people we dislike, we have little trouble handling them roughly. “Pro-life” can be code for a social movement to preserve the “right people”.

Of course the crusaders are sincere. After all, they’ve seen the cuddly pictures on the propaganda media.

Medical Mess

Social systems, like organisms, are often insanely complex and convoluted. “Simple” things like an animal taking a step invoke nearly infinitely complicated signals, even after we discount the infinite underlying reactions keeping life going.

Any crackpot or “normal” person tends to believe if we “just keep it simple” we could clean up a social system such as medicine and make it cheaper, more responsive, and more robust. After all, how hard could it be?

Ask a biologist what’s involved in a deer strolling across a meadow. And don’t forget things like all the trillions of ATP cellular reactions.Fixing a social system is even worse. Like organisms, social systems are not isolated but exist in an ecology.

Reform may, in fact, be impossible. What often happens instead is extinction or replacement by creatures invading the territory.

I suspect we are in such a situation. Most of our cultural systems are complicated ancient relics that still work but are increasingly susceptible to extinction or replacement.

Not “fixing them up”, not “evolution”, but vanishing into irrelevance.

Medical coverage and practice among them .

In such cases, it seems better to concentrate on “why” rather than “how”. Presumably our AI masters will produce all the answers necessary.

Not sure we will like those much .

Angry Wealth

America has traditionally considered itself a land of “improvers”. An individual life was supposed to be one of financial advancement. Society was expected to progress as tinkerers brought forth new technological marvels. “New, improved” replaced “excelsior” as the mantra of the masses .

A core belief has also remained that satiation is impossible. You may get sick of too much ice cream, but never of ever better living conditions. Useful hedonism has no upper limit, and striving for the impossible is one of the things that makes an individual successful and society exceptional .

Okay. All that is hardly in dispute. Yet there seem to be very wealthy people not only sad but increasingly angry. They resent everyone else. They envy everything they do not have. They bitterly curse that they do not have more. They scream at cruel fate which limits them to mortality. They especially whine about social limits .

Perhaps we made a wrong turn somewhere. Technology makes it so easy to concentrate on baubles and gadgets that most of us neglect traditional pleasures. You can’t “improve” a sunset nor the joy of a rose garden (although industrial culture can easily ruin or destroy both). We’ve come to expect that “improving” our minds is only useful if it adds to our income .

I enjoy technology. The only caveat I have is that we may be wealthy already, and we should be properly grateful without always screaming for more.

Make America Something Again

Politicians and preachers have often invoked the image of the last golden age, so unlike these degenerate times. On the opposite pole, prophets of the future proclaim utopian visions. The common thread, of course, is that all you miserable little people will be much happier if you just listen to me (and contribute) .

I’ve always been as skeptical of future visions as I am of any dreams. I know enough history to understand how distorted nostalgia can be. Of course, I’ve never pitied myself as one of those alleged miserable masses of everyone. Most of my happiness has been founded in ignoring the sales pitches so common to our consumer culture .

However it’s been entertaining to follow social fads as they parade through society. At one time (see I can do it too!) religions, for example, may have been fairly stable. But now the latest viral sensations advise and pummel us hour by hour .

Among the silliest are the various “make great”. It is nothing new, people always thought they could “make great” by doing something or other, often involving wiping out other people. It’s the “again” that goes against my instincts, perhaps because I was raised in a progressive-directed environment .

Hate to tell people, but for us “ordinary” folks there was never a perfect world to which to return. Examined closely and honestly, life at all times has been chaotic and desperate and unfair. And fine, wonderful, and miraculous.

Just like this now moment, the reality you should concentrate on.

Again and again .

Priest Kings

A long, long time ago, when people were foolish and ignorant, every tribe large enough to be considered civilized was led by a priest king. He was absolutely sure whatever he thought and did was decreed by the gods or other supernatural force such as destiny, and therefore must be right .

As people wised up, they often changed ruling patterns so that most of them would have some say in what was done. A few malcontents claimed the old days were better, and current problems were a curse from forsaken gods .

Happy news! The golden times have returned !

All the nuclear tribes are suddenly being ruled by the new priest kings, and their foolish and ignorant masses are happy to bask in the knowledge that whatever the government says to do must be right. Putin in Russia, Xi in China, Trump in the USA, Modi in India, Netanyahu in Israel – others too numerous to mention – have all returned with clear visions of what is, was, and must be. Even though each dream differs completely from the others.

Some of us remain behind the times, and still stubbornly revere logic and knowledge. We feel like the proverbial one-eyed man in the land of the blind .

The priest kings themselves are old and fragile and no one knows who may replace them. But with their current certainties and actions, it may well be that no replacements will ever be necessary .

Security

Ask folks what they want, and there are varied standard answers. Fame, fortune, health top the list for most. Friends, family, purpose fit in there somewhere. I suggest the most subconscious thing most of us crave is basic security. We like to know what we know, we hope what worked for us yesterday will still work for us tomorrow .

“Oh that’s silly” you will say. If things are bad we want a change. True, but only a change we can anticipate or accept. We always fear change for the worse. Sometimes we would rather realize a pattern than escape it. As Dylan Thomas wrote “there must, be praised, some certainty, if not of loving well, then not, …”

Gamblers seek excitement, but they not only think they know the odds, but securely believe they can always gamble again. Adventurers plan to return from their expeditions. These are bumps in the general security of their times .

Examine all social systems. The most stable tend to be exactly those where people are secure about what they do. Even if what they do is to start something new and different or to take a risk. Nobody wants to wake up in a jumbled inscrutable environment each day .

To some extent, that seems to be this society which is developing around us. It’s often scary. And no, I do not feel any more secure in simply recognizing that fact .

Oligarchs, Thugs, Victims

Oligarchs have taken control of the United States. They may enforce their power by buying elections, but they pick candidates and tell the winners what to do. They may claim to follow a “rule of law” but since they control laws, application of law, and exceptions to law this is little different than mafia Dons following a “code of conduct” .

Oligarchy hollows out bureaucracy, and replaces “civil servants” (who believed they worked for the public good) with thugs who know they must only please their boss. They serve at the whim of the wealthy aristocrats, and they shape actions and twist words to make any action “legal”. Whether the final social results are gentle or not, former citizens become a mass of victims. Speaking out is punished, acting against orders is punished severely. We’ve seen it before in countless dictatorships .

Finally, most oligarchs prefer to rule through figureheads. The puppet masters would rather not be seen, not even noticed. It’s easy enough to buy dupes and direct them. Much less aggravating or dangerous .

Oligarchs are not merely wealthy, nor even ultra wealthy. They tend to be megalomaniacs who are certain they know what is right for everyone else. They have limitless power and need not “cling” to it – they are in control, they know it, and they will remain so forever more .

Executive Orders

“Rule of law” is invoked as an ideal by almost everyone these days. The simplest definition would be rules that are unchanging, well-known by everyone, and enforced equally on all .

Obviously, that ideal is impossible. Laws must change to fit social conditions. They become increasingly complex – murder is different than killing in self-defense – so everyone cannot know them and lawyers are required. “Applied equally” is just as hard – from days of simple weregild to current fines – the rich and powerful suffer far less .

But, even with all those exceptions, the concept is nice. In a democracy, we further have the ideals that laws are formulated and changed only with the consent of the populace. Complicated by social rights that no populace can infringe on. Tangled, but still relatively clear, and has seemed to work decently for hundreds of years .

We oppose that ideal to such things as revolutionary councils, absolute monarchs, and dictators. These have the ability to change laws at whim, decide to whom they apply, make transgressions retroactive, and define terms arbitrarily as they see fit – treason, for example.

And so we come to the title. Rule of law does NOT mean blindly following ANY law. Monarchs can declare any whim as legality. Rule of law implies a certain stable process and application. “Executive orders” from the US president shatter rule of law _ once again, legality is simply power, capriciously and unequally applied .

Sure, rulers will always say it is necessary in “emergencies”. But for them the emergency will never end