Blogiarism

I hate blogging. Even the word irritates me. Blog. Blogging. Blogger. Bloggity-blog-blog-blog. I can never think of anything to say. If I copy someone else's blog, would it be blogiarism? There are about a billion new blogs a minute... What would you call a group of blogs? A flog of blogs? (From “Flock” and “blog” - the alternative was “block”, which was even less funny.)

What could I blog about? Writing. Martial Arts. Mythology. The dystopian future stretching before humanity. I do like mythology. I also like cynical dystopian musing. Not always. I sometimes cherish the warm idea that humanity might one day attain a perfect society where all disputes are settled by nunchuks duelling. I believe peace and harmony would immediately ensue; it is impossible for two people to fight with nunchuks without both of them ending up in hospital.

Another utopian dream I have is of a society based on intelligence. Instead of ID cards, IQ cards. The law code would be proscribed by IQ; the smarter you are, the less supervision society assumes you need. If the police are called because someone is walking on the railway lines, they ask him “What's your IQ?” If it's over, say, 120, the bloke can carry on; if under 80, the police take him away and keep him at the station until a responsible adult takes charge of him.

I can imagine far worse ways to order society. Basing society on the greed motive, that'd be a disaster. I mean, who, just for starters, would even think it? What sort of evil bastard would conceive such a plan, to convince the rest of the species that greed was a-ok? And who in their right mind would agree to that proposition?

And yet... only last week, I saw a politician on the news defending the arms trade. Seriously. He actually said that it was perfectly legitimate to make a profit from international arms dealing. That there was nothing immoral in peddling perpetual war for profit. He didn't say it exactly like that; there was a lot more stumbling and stuttering as he gamely attempted the defence of the indefensible.

But greed is the basis of society. Or rather, moral greed; the notion that greed is a good thing. It's called Capitalism. Okay, I'm a cynic; this is the system we live under. Alright, no choice but to accept that. Living in the woods is always an option, but it's cold out there.

Do I need to explain why greed is not a moral motive for doing anything, ever? Do I have to explain what greed is? It's a worry that I even have to wonder. Alright; I am not talking about getting paid to do something, or turning a fair profit. It is perfectly acceptable to do things to earn currency which you can exchange for goods and services. Greed is the desire to acquire far more goods and services than one could ever need.

The default argument is that without greed we'd have no motive to work. But that's the lie; the veiled notion that greed is not merely an acceptable motive but in truth the only viable motive for human endeavour. If that were true, I wouldn't be a writer; I'd have a proper job instead.

Greed can motivate people to do that which they would not otherwise do. In so doing, greed legitimises any action: “I did it for the money” might never be a defence in court for you or I, but it seems to stand bankers and politicians in good stead over the years.

I have noticed one cheering development lately; news pundits have started to remark that capitalism requires a constant flow of money, like blood around a body; every organ needs supply. The problems of our global society can be summarized as there simply being far too many people who don't have enough money to participate in Capitalism.

That, right there, is a profound concept that represents a raising of consciousness.