05-29-2024, 08:31 PM
Such a relief to hear from you outside the debate arena.
Frankly I find lists compelling so...
1. National Security
In a nation oriented towards being financially obsessed with profit, this "buzz word" is often used disingenuously by public officials... Any theoretical threat they might pose hasn't manifested itself in the many decades (nay, centuries) of their proposed presence. I find it difficult to attribute much weight to the fear. Besides, every time I hear the words "national security" spoken by anyone... it leads to "we need me more money from you."
2. TPTB has no plan
While it may be true that they "have no plan" it might also be true that there is no such reality as a "The Powers that Be." Such a concept might be an illusion perpetrated by those who dread more than anything that we might surmise that they have no idea what they are doing. It's all a game to them. But even if it is true that there is a person, group, or institution which is truly in charge.. deciding for "everyone" on how to engage with this possibility (probability?)... it seems unwise to assume they are motivated and driven by a sense of "protection for the people.'
3. The chance for societal disruption
I suspect this notion is a trope left over from the past. The idea that people will simply destroy themselves over the news is a pervasive myth. I don't deny that some will prey upon the moment to engage in acts of stupidity, I don't think it can ever be deduced that we will simply stick our heads between our knees and kiss our butts goodbye. That kind of paranoia is too specific to another time, when a lot less people weren't starting to realize that we hardly know anything about our universe.
4. ...or a non-public agreement
Of all the noteworthy and important aspects of the discussion, I find this most relevant. You see, caving to their paranoia, government officials 'allowed' themselves to covertly "move" all these matters to private enterprise... which led to them becoming ignorant - at the government level - of what was going on. They thought reliance on political appointees and "major" industrialists was "an alright idea" - motivated by fear of course - 'plausible deniability' being the major selling point (along with political favors and support.) Chances are, if there have been 'deals' cut... it wasn't "the government" that made them... it was "other" organizations, cabals, and groups of the now 'NGO' variety.
5. departmental misdeeds and a desire to cover up the misdeeds
Ah, crimes. Well, crimes can be laundered just like money. The official ones often are (that's where politics comes in.)
6. other organizational priorities
My fear is that such "other" priorities are, in fact, not those of our government exclusively... they can be religious, economic, and partisan, just to name a few. "Sustainability" and "eugenics" comes to mind...
My question always returns to the idea of "Why?" We are not even a species that is cohesive with each other; we are our own worst enemies, violently so. Under what circumstance would it be 'useful' to engage such a species? In the end, the only thing that ever broke the boundary in my imaginings is the purpose of exploitation (since we seem so willing to do it to each other anyway.) Not my idea of a good scenario.
Frankly I find lists compelling so...
1. National Security
In a nation oriented towards being financially obsessed with profit, this "buzz word" is often used disingenuously by public officials... Any theoretical threat they might pose hasn't manifested itself in the many decades (nay, centuries) of their proposed presence. I find it difficult to attribute much weight to the fear. Besides, every time I hear the words "national security" spoken by anyone... it leads to "we need me more money from you."
2. TPTB has no plan
While it may be true that they "have no plan" it might also be true that there is no such reality as a "The Powers that Be." Such a concept might be an illusion perpetrated by those who dread more than anything that we might surmise that they have no idea what they are doing. It's all a game to them. But even if it is true that there is a person, group, or institution which is truly in charge.. deciding for "everyone" on how to engage with this possibility (probability?)... it seems unwise to assume they are motivated and driven by a sense of "protection for the people.'
3. The chance for societal disruption
I suspect this notion is a trope left over from the past. The idea that people will simply destroy themselves over the news is a pervasive myth. I don't deny that some will prey upon the moment to engage in acts of stupidity, I don't think it can ever be deduced that we will simply stick our heads between our knees and kiss our butts goodbye. That kind of paranoia is too specific to another time, when a lot less people weren't starting to realize that we hardly know anything about our universe.
4. ...or a non-public agreement
Of all the noteworthy and important aspects of the discussion, I find this most relevant. You see, caving to their paranoia, government officials 'allowed' themselves to covertly "move" all these matters to private enterprise... which led to them becoming ignorant - at the government level - of what was going on. They thought reliance on political appointees and "major" industrialists was "an alright idea" - motivated by fear of course - 'plausible deniability' being the major selling point (along with political favors and support.) Chances are, if there have been 'deals' cut... it wasn't "the government" that made them... it was "other" organizations, cabals, and groups of the now 'NGO' variety.
5. departmental misdeeds and a desire to cover up the misdeeds
Ah, crimes. Well, crimes can be laundered just like money. The official ones often are (that's where politics comes in.)
6. other organizational priorities
My fear is that such "other" priorities are, in fact, not those of our government exclusively... they can be religious, economic, and partisan, just to name a few. "Sustainability" and "eugenics" comes to mind...
My question always returns to the idea of "Why?" We are not even a species that is cohesive with each other; we are our own worst enemies, violently so. Under what circumstance would it be 'useful' to engage such a species? In the end, the only thing that ever broke the boundary in my imaginings is the purpose of exploitation (since we seem so willing to do it to each other anyway.) Not my idea of a good scenario.
