I'm a bit of a movie buff.
I especially like science fiction movies.
I'm also a little paranoid and keen on conspiracy theories.
It should therefore come to no surprise that I was sucked into the viral marketing of Roland Emerich's new 2012 Movie.
http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org/
The site let's you have some fun simulating various doomsday scenarios. There are links to a quite comical new age guru in the form of "Charlie" and his youtube channel. (I won't spoil the fun with name dropping or links.) Be sure to sign up for the lottery, perhaps you will win and be saved either underground or in space!
There are a few links on the site that go to "real" websites. One of them led me to an organization called the Alliance to Rescue Civilization. As you could become a member and it seemed to have a lot to read about futurism, I joined. I thought it couldn't hurt, I even contributed the observations that you'll be reading shortly. Even if it was all a marketing ploy, I thought it might be fun.
After reading a few articles with titles like:
Long Range Strategy for Using Space to Protect Mankind or
Planetary Defense
I wondered if this was real or not. It seemed too thorough for an advertising campaign.
So I typed ARC into google and found this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/science/01arc.html
The Alliance to Rescue Civilization is REAL!
Here is their mission statement:
"The mission of the Alliance to Rescue Civilization (ARC) is to protect
the human species and its civilization from destruction that could
result from a global catastrophic event, including nuclear war, acts of
terrorism, plague and asteroid collisions. To fulfill its mission, ARC
is dedicated to creating continuously staffed facilities on the Moon
and other locations away from Earth. These facilities will preserve
backups of scientific and cultural achievements, and of the species
important to our civilization. In the event of a global catastrophe,
the ARC facilities will be prepared to reintroduce lost technology,
art, history, crops, livestock and,if necessary, even human beings to
the Earth."
These are the people storing our "everything." They want to be the people that save our everything.
If you would like to pursue information further before contemplating the following:
http://arc-space.wetpaint.com/page/ARC+Mission
ON ARC'S Philosophy.
The biggest obstacle to the work proposed by ARC is the individual complacency demonstrated by greed. The selfishness of looking out for yourself before the good of the all. If you look at it religiously or spiritually you run the risk of dangerous offenses. If you look at it scientifically you must have proof. It's the double standard of the fickle programming. You can't win. There isn't any answer possible in the current reality.
We've reached an impasse for either the mystical or scientific argument for it takes a leap of faith to reasonably explain both the smallest and largest components of either camp. (Note I say mystical, not religious, let us separate Religion as an idea from the idea of God, furthermore let us stipulate that "God" shall be defined as "Creator" and nothing more. I do this as the idea of God as creator is common among current and historical definitions. There's also the ease of contemplation in terms of equality with the ease of understanding.
I don't have the faculty nor the time to understand the true nature of the big bang, I must take it on as much faith as I do God. And I do... The evaluation of why I do, perhaps we will discuss some other time.) Religion, on the other hand, let us define as the catagorization and distribution of a much finer definition of God with all the accoutre one would expect. (For eg: "God is such and such or God expects this and that.") So by the defining of our terms we can now claim that our God vs the Big Bang paradigm is equally reliant on faith. It doesn't mean that we must pick one or the other. It means we must remember what faith means.
If we disregard the technical considerations of ARC's proposals, which I must, I'm not qualified in the field, I'm left to do what I do best, which is determining past and present paradigm, relevance of associations, logical evaluation of motives and action with qualified consideration. I propose that while acknowleding the limitations of the contemplative ability of the masses and the worthiness of it's salvation, ARC does nothing to address it's plans to save the humans from themselves. That must be done by one and by all, by themselves, through complete honesty and authenticity. Now is not the place for considerations that we shall call elitist: tradition, authority, sanctity, ingroup, purity, even political correctness but a time to consider the old fashioned idea of Citizenry and a modern, planetary definition of citizen. I propose that this can be found in my work redefining Aristotle's Eudaimonea.
We should also not fail to mention that there might be out and out resistance to the ARC proposals, considering the rampant phenomenon of what I call apocalyptic thinking. We are getting it from both the Scientists and the Spiritualists, "The end is Nigh!" Apocolypse for the religion side, eco failure or human insanity for the scientists. I don't think that anyone could reasonably argue against the observation that the incidents of negative effect on the planet have increased exponentially in this round of recorded history. Life seems to be coming to a head, a peak, a corner, a change, a critical mass, a something...
I've always enjoyed FOXNEWS very right-wing opinement. During the Bush years, the Whitehouse could do no wrong. Now in the Obama years we have Glen Beck breaking down about how is country is falling apart, crying on screen and saying things like "This president is putting a bullet in the back of America." (Doing so at about the four month mark of Obama's term.) (This is without discussing the terrifying considerations of manifestation, but I digress yet again...) Don't bother saying "Well of course, that's Fox News for ya!" because CNN has become just as biased and confused. Yesterday I noticed their latest graphics were for something called "Government Watch" where the tagline was that they were "keeping an eye on the Whitehouse for us". It's almost as if everyone is on board for this failure.
It is rampant ineptitude, built in obsolescence, willfull ignorance, unaccountability, greed and confusion. It seems that every truth, when it is finally revealed is so absurd that all one does is shake one's head in disbelief.
If ARC wants to truly succeed it must go against the invisible hand that guides the minor forces to victory and the major forces to loss, for the minor forces have all the power when the major forces have all the strength.
Best Thoughts,
Brian Taylor
Comments
Last year they fired up one of those old Apollo RS-18 rockets with liquid methane and it still works just fine.
They should leave NASA to doing talks on global warming and recruit some military people and set up a new organization to actually do something in space.
(*) Since that was a Bush idea, my bet is Obama will not do it.
Hank Campbell | 06/05/09 | 09:17 AM
We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
Wernher von Braun
Patrick Lockerby | 06/05/09 | 09:24 AM
- also von Braun, on being asked if the Soviets being first into space was due to the Soviet capture of German scientists at the end of WW2.
Hank Campbell | 06/05/09 | 09:28 AM
where's my hovercar?
Not quite in production yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN5jTvsx4J4
Where's My Jetpack?
Patrick Lockerby | 06/05/09 | 09:16 AM
"To fulfill its mission, ARC is dedicated to creating continuously staffed facilities on the Moon and other locations away from Earth. These facilities will preserve backups of scientific and cultural achievements, and of the species important to our civilization. In the event of a global catastrophe, the ARC facilities will be prepared to reintroduce lost technology, art, history, crops, livestock and,if necessary, even human beings to the Earth."
Have these folks looked at the numbers? Preserving species? I'll be impressed if they can manage to get two cows and two pigs to the moon, let alone enough to preserve the species.
Such a facility on the moon is several decades away, if it is possible at all. It does fit in with the general trend in thinking though which believes that it can reduce the human condition to an engineering problem. The idea of taking a back-up of humanity strikes me as more quaint than plausible.
The selfishness of looking out for yourself before the good of the all.
I don't believe that's what is happening. While many people are cynical regarding this, the practical side of it is that each social group is looking out for its own survival, which is what it has always done. Even social groups that we might feel a closer relationship with aren't going to be as important as preserving our own group. This could be considered at the national level, or even sublevels of groups depending on the priority of the individuals involved.
In fairness, what is the "good of the all"? Is it really reasonable to consider saving humanity as being so important that you'd willingly sacrifice yourself for people that you share nothing in common with? What would be the point? In other words, if nothing that I value (culturally) is going to be preserved, then why worry about saving it? I might just as well focus on ensuring my dogs inherit the earth.
This may sound self-centered, but it is the basis by which we define our existence. Human beings associate with groups and protect them because they represent a set of values that they have in common. Without that, there is no group and there is no motivation to act to protect any other. Would it make sense to willingly sacrifice the United States so that Europe or Asia could survive? Would athiests sacrifice themselves so Christians can survive (or vice versa)?
Even ants don't show preferential treatment to others of the same species if they are from other colonies.
Unfortunately humans are ultimately doomed to follow the dictates of their own biology, and I seriously doubt that they will ever use their intelligence to direct their own actions in any meaningful way. Humanity will continue to reproduce without limit, and will face the consequences of their choices just like every other species has. If they are exceptionally lucky, they may survive it. If not, then they will be another footnote in paleontology which (hopefully) some future species can analyze.
Gerhard Adam | 06/05/09 | 18:53 PM
Professor Stephen Hawking.
When I was a child in the 1950s it was assumed by almost every boy in the school that we would soon have a colony on the moon. Today, I wonder what went wrong. We should be hearing daily of new discoveries made by the astronomers of 'Farside Base', discoveries made possible by the moon's blocking out of human pollution of the electromagnetic spectrum, by the building of mirrors larger than is possible in Earth's gravity, and by the scientific application of human genius.
Ah, well! Maybe next century?