How able an organism is to do a particular thing depends upon
that organism's nature and nurture; its genetic make-up and its
experiences in life, respectively. Apart from in the case of
clones (in people, for example, identical twins) -- although it is
almost certain, in real life, that they will not both have the
exact same experiences -- each organism is unique in both
respects. A person's ability, like any other
characteristics, such as hair, eye, or skin colour, for example,
are set at the instance of that person's conception. And
they are set in stone; unalterable2.
Nobody gets to choose what genetics they get, because, until they
get them (when they are conceived), he or she (that person)
doesn't even exist in the first place. Additionally, a
person's life experiences help or hinder him or her in what is
possible for him or her to achieve.
No matter how much effort you
put in to anything, you can never achieve beyond your ability.
See the 'Effort Myth' entry.
The greatest of all abilities is intelligence.
See also the 'Disability' entry.
2(of course, hair, eye, and skin
colour, for example, may, to whatever extent, be outwardly changed
by the use of dyes, contact lenses, or lotions, respectively --
but only if you've got the ability (to manufacture or
otherwise obtain the materials required and to use them to your
desired effect)—see, it's all still about ability!)
In a democracy, the government is the people.
In a direct democracy,
the ultimate form of democracy, all
decisions (within some prescribed scope which, itself, has been
directly democratically agreed upon3)
require the agreement of each of all of the people4.
In an indirect democracy,
the people4 vote for representatives
(politicians) who then make decisions on the people's
behalf. In order to be elected, a representative will
present himself or herself to the electorate (voters) and offer
his or her views on various issues, using available methods, such
as public speeches, canvassing, leafleting, media appearances,
A great many people
have the illusion that they are living in a democracy, despite
also having an economic system. Economic systems put a price
on everything and that determines how
free your speech is, how loud your speech is, and how high
up the socio-politico-economic scale your voice will find willing
ears. Remember: resources -- money -- 'talks'.
Economic systems and democracy
cannot both exist at the same place and at the same time; they
are mutually exclusive. See also the 'Freedom' entry.
3(where, without which scope, there
would likely be practical, logistical difficulties given the
amount of issues to be considered and agreed upon and the method
by which votes are cast and counted. In this modern age of
technology, particularly in terms of the Internet, mobile (cell)
phone, public payment-transactioning networks, etc, this can be
4(with possible exceptions, such as in having a minimum voting age -- however every exception entails a paradox: such exceptions can only be agreed by all voters, that is, voters included in which are the very people the exception seeks to exclude from voting)
Think of 'the disabled' and you will probably conjure up images
in your head of people in wheelchairs, or the blind, or deaf,
etc. In actual fact, we
are all disabled, since disability is simply inversely
proportional to ability, and we all have different abilities; this is just the same as
saying (equivalent to) we all
have different disabilities.
It is a moral perversion of capitalism
that, in order to mitigate its effects, we are directed to
identify and group together certain people -- those
wheelchair-bound, blind, or deaf individuals -- the 'traditional'
notions and definitions of people with disabilities, setting them
apart from everyone else -- the 'abled', for, for example, the
purposes of welfare provision for them by the state (socialism), but, inevitably, prompting
negativity, even to abuse, towards them.
If only we saw that we are all
abled -- or disabled -- to whatever extent we are (the terms are
equivalent) -- each of all of us being on a continuous spectrum
of ability/disability (again, the terms are equivalent), we'd
have so much more a happier and peaceful society; no more 'them'
An economic system is a system that allocates resources according
to some particular criteria or other.
Economic systems may be consciously devised and implemented, or,
in the case of, for example, capitalism,
may simply reflect urges and drives ('human nature') (in the case
of capitalism, selfish greed).
Freedom is the absence of hindrance in doing something.
A great many people have the illusion that they living in
freedom, despite also having an economic system. Economic
systems put a price on everything and that determines how free your speech is, and what
you are able to get in life.
Remember: resources -- money -- 'talks'.
It's simple: you cannot be
living in a free country if anything you look at has a price
Economic systems and freedom cannot both exist at the same place and at the same time; they are mutually exclusive. See also the 'Democracy' entry.
Freedom of speech is the absence of hindrance in expressing your
thoughts and feelings.
A great many people have the illusion that they have freedom of speech, despite also having an economic system. Economic systems put a price on everything and that determines how free your speech is, how loud your speech is, and how high up the socio-politico-economic scale your voice will find willing ears. Remember: resources -- money -- 'talks'.
Economic systems and freedom of speech cannot both exist at the same place and at the same time; they are mutually exclusive. See also the 'Freedom' entry.
Greed is the craving, satisfied or not, for resources in excess, in terms of quality and/or quantity, of effecting satiation of immediate needs. Greed is essential for human progress, however there is world of difference between its two types: 'Greed: Selfish' and 'Greed: Unselfish'. Greed, within the context of an organism, is often cited in contrast to need.
Selfish greed is the craving, satisfied or not, for resources for
excess, in terms of quality and/or quantity, of effecting
satiation of one's1 immediate
needs. See the 'Greed: Selfish, Irony of'
The Irony of Selfish Greed refers
to the fact that although selfish greed
appears to be advantageous to the selfishly
greedy, it is, in fact, inherently disadvantageous to them. This is due to
the fact that in securing resources for its1
own exclusive benefit (selfish greed),
the selfishly greedy denies or
hinders those resources to others who could then use them to the greater benefit of the
otherwise selfishly greedy1.
Unselfish greed is the craving, satisfied or not, for resources for everybody, in excess, in terms of quality and/or quantity, of effecting satiation of everybody's immediate needs. Note that, for example, an individual may be unselfishly greedy towards his fellow countryman, but crave for his country, as a whole, to be selfishly greedy towards other countries. For the ultimate in unselfish greediness, by 'everybody' is meant 'all known to exist'.
Intelligence is the greatest ability of
Stephen Hawking, the world-famous scientist, is severely limited
physically due to his medical condition. But that doesn't
stand in the way of him exercising his brilliant mind, pushing
forward the boundaries of knowledge. And it's financially
profitable for him too, him being the author of several
internationally best-selling books.
Intelligence evolved and was an instant hit, developing to the
level we, as humans, enjoy. It's not surprising.
Intelligence allows you to solve problems -- and go further.
It allows you to understand things and form a knowledge upon which
to base invention and construction to advantage, even to theorise
the unknown. With intelligence, you can achieve much faster
than you could without it. And you can strive in deliberate
directions. Having intelligence automatically gives you
freewill -- the ability to make choices
(without intelligence you would not even know that there was
choice at all in the first place, being blind to all opportunity,
and actions would be completely either instinctual or arbitrary,
Any instance of resources being insufficient for
survival. Need, within the context of an organism, is often
cited in contrast to greed.
Any instance of a resource being secure against the losing of it
Mother nature laid out her bounty
before us: the land, seas, fields, deserts, beasts, fowl,
mountains, streams, flowers, trees, and so on. She assigned
none of this to anyone in particular; it was simply there.
Each man, according to his selfish,
greedy heart, however, was driven to seize and secure as
much of it as he was able, for his own,
exclusive, benefit. In that world of limited resources, thus
came conflict and war, as man fought against man to increase his
personal stock. And, though, after a while, when the costs
of all-out hostilities could be so great that all might perish,
trade was invented, it remained war, with notes and coins the new
bombs and bullets (capitalism, being a
competitive system, is an example of war, from individuals within
a society to inter-societal (international) conflict). And
so it continues to the present day.
As things get passed down the
generations, inherited, things won, lost, seized by others, bought
and sold, all are made handlers of stolen goods. In his
stealing from nature, a man steals from all others. But it's worse than that: for, in
doing this, each man steals from himself! In demanding a price for
his labours and that which he owns, so he limits their
deployment. Thus, the cancer scientist will only work to
find a cure for cancer to the extent that he is paid to do so;
limiting the finding of treatments and cures for a disease which he himself is as likely as anyone else to get!
And so with the pharmaceutical company providing the laboratories
and associated resources! And so we limit all human
endeavour, all science and progress. This is the Irony of
Selfish Greed -- see the 'Greed:
Selfish, Irony of' entry for a concise definition. We
puzzle over dilemmas of our own making such as whether to build
wind farms -- a relatively cheap technology but which
infrastructure blots the land or seascape -- or geothermal power
-- which is relatively expensive to implement but which
infrastructure can be hidden away out of sight (or nuclear --
'environmentally clean' but also relatively expensive and with
public anxieties over radiation). Without a hint of shame, a
minority of the population -- the richest -- maintaining a
scarcity of resources, sanctimoniously exhort chastity and
moderation in all things to the rest, while themselves happily
maintaining their own state of debauchery and excess.
only we would see sense. There's already more than
plenty for each of us on this planet, but how much more if we
didn't limit ourselves the way we do. That way, there'd be nothing to hold us
back. We could, in no time at all, be the visitors and
miners of other worlds; today, as things are, we've only been able
to afford the research and technology to man a flight to Mars and
back, and, although we've had that knowledge and technology for a
good number of years now, the idea's never, literally, got off the
ground; Why? We've made it too expensive. Everything's too expensive.
Have you been paying attention?: think about it. From having
robotic, human-like helpers to our potential immortality.
See the 'World's
Greatest-Ever Idea' entry.
Many organisms are territorial, in the traditional sense.
An organism's territory is that volume of space (includes
whatever's in it) that it owns
(possesses). Humans mark their territories in various
ways; one example is the graffitiing in public spaces with one's
name or one's nickname ('tagging' with one's 'tag') although this
is usually limited in that what is being asserted as being in
one's ownership is only the right to determine who (of certain
people) can enter the area (this is no different to an animal,
such as a dog, urinating and defecating to mark out its territory)
and, possibly also, conduct certain activities there.
The World's Greatest-Ever Idea is the idea to do away with having
any economic system(s)
whatsoever. An exponent of this is The UK Abolish Money
Organisation (external link, opens in a new window).