Science Fiction Corner of Budding, Novel Ideas. And a Rant on Systems of Centralization and Decentralization. Linear and Non-Linear Reasoning.

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

Unfortunately, Dr. Sam Sweet--even though he is not a fan of science
fiction (none of it is useful and very well tied to reality) (I also
talked to Dr. Milton Love, and he said that many science fiction
writers--e.g. Isaac Asimov, were largely money-driven because back in
the day you could make a pretty penny writing science fiction),
unfortunately Sam Sweet's lectures give me lots of science fiction
ideas. More so, thought experiments that cannot necessarily be tested
by tangible experiments.

For example, since we have been learning about the evolutionary
vertebrate morphology, I have come to realize that all we have been
learning is about the plumbing, tubing, self-puppetry (musculoskeletal
feedbacks), and wiring of organisms. We're just a bunch of mooshy
pipes and wires suspended on some sticks and rubber bands made of
biological materials. Extending on Dr. Bruce Tiffney's definition of
life (no, I am no longer depressed by this meaning of life, it's
rather amusing and I'm sure a visit to Mark Twain in hxll might be
amused)--we are truly bags of chemicals surrounded by a membrane that
interacts with the environment through selective filtering of inputs
and outputs to acquire chemicals such as to maintain its existence and
replicate itself. And not only that, all its behaviors-operations-
functions-operations (however you want to call it) conform to the laws
of physics, and depending on the size of the bag of chemicals, its
experience of physical reality is very different even though all laws
of physics are constant. So, given this extended existentialist
definition of the meaning of life... I wanted to ... uh... venture
back down onto science fiction lane.

(1). We just learned that there had been independent evolution of
occpital, auditory, and olfactory bulges and lobes in the brains of
fish, and as evolution of brains continued, these three separate
sensory processing centers started to become more integrative. From
decentralized to centralized, multi-layered sensory-thought
processing. It's almost the same situation with independent evolution
of technologies that are retro-actively integrated into one piece of
technology that is able to compromise and overlap and sync up,
multiple originally simultaneously conflicting functions. Soon, every
single human will have an iBot or iRobot, which will be the ultimate
companion to human needs.

So, this pattern of centralization and decentralization and
recentralization of networks is apparent in (1) evolution of brains
(2) evolution of technology (3) now, I would argue, potentially
BIOCHEMICAL EVOLUTION, I could see how carbohydrates, lipids, DNA, and
proteins could have evolved separately, but in the end, seemed to have
the ability to compromise and co-evolve these once originally
multiple, simultaneousy conflicting functions. (What came first, the
chicken or the egg? What came first? The protein or the cell?) Didn't
biochemical evolution take a few billion years or so? How many forms
of biochemicals were manufactured? And how many of them were able to
synergize and sync up their operations with each other? I suppose not
too many. I couldn't imagine how many millions and billions of
failures could have happened just to get some kind of operating
biochemical system. I mean, look at prions. Viruses! There must have
been a bazillion of weirdo pseudo-life creatures existing in the past
before we came to what we have today! (Armand argues that before
relationships become mutualisms, many times they end up starting as
parasitisms, not perfect or optimal balance in mass and energetics,
aha I see).

(4). And now, in my last argument... going from biochemical evolution,
to the evolution of ORGANISMAL MORPHOLOGY at macro scale, from single
celled micro-organisms to megacorporate body plans and mass production
of cells, I suppose there is that same type of situation. As Sam Sweet
argued, the evolution of vertebrate skulls, and perhaps overall
morphology is the syncing up of multiple simultaneous, conflicting
functions, that could have potentially been independently evolved, but
slowly synked up the wiring and plumbing in Later Versions.

Has natural selection overall weeded out decentralized designs of body
plans? As opposed to centralized, integrated designs? So, you would
think so. But this sort of principle may stay within the biological
realm, not necessarily in the human societal realm. I would argue that
decentralized systems may be necessary in human societies, due to
scale-based issues, inputs-outputs, etcetera.

Does natural selection "prefer a certain scale or magnitude of
existence"? A certain range of metabolisms? Well, apparently not, we
got prions to whales, over 21 orders of magnitude in existence.
Shxtsy. That's what I say. But they all seem to exist in a certain
metabolic range, because I would assume that if a system
overmetaoblised, it would essentially consume itself maybe even
overheat itself (or it's just not feasible, because chemical reactions
for respiration ATP-ADP conversions simply couldn't go so fast--but
what if you created organisms with faster metabolic rates than the ATP-
ADP complex with musculature--flipping scary, I would say... (but
that's an aside), and if it undermetabolized, then the system would
collapse in itself because its not supplying enough energy to sustain
the existence of the system. Anorexia is anorexia, and I had been
there and done that. I should know better, eh? Talk about collapsing
under its own existence. What if I fed myself more over night? My body
would have to take a few months of metabolic shifting to readjust to a
new mass and processing ability. It's a whole-multi-scaled shift in my
own morphology (and mentality).

Ken Nagy calls this "parsimonious" operations of different parts of an
organism. Not optimal, but good enough such that natural selection
hasn't weeded the design out... yet. Natural selection is a mass-
accumulation effect of all elements, building and chipping away. I
think it would be interesting to conduct a series of thought
experiments in terms of How to Design an Organism. How would an
organism, like a mouse, would be designed if it were just raw
chemicals and rules of physics? Then how would it be designed given
the addition of abiotic gradients? Then how would it be designed based
on the addition of other biotic, ecological characters? For example,
Sam Sweet mentioned that based on Euler's Principle (elasticity,
buckling), trees would reaching a certain height would have a certain
diameter, such that it would not collapse under its own weight. But,
in the "real world," most diameters of trees are 8-10x as thick (due
to the presence of other factors, like wind). So, there is a "margin
of safety" factor that is accounted for in the design of organisms.
Organismal Design is not just about meeting Bare Mininum Requirements
of Shanty Jack-in-the-Box Fastfood Infrastructure, they have got some
additional structure to account for margin of error. In human design,
the margin of safety is only 3-5x. So, it's interesting to add and
substract layers of "selective factors" of an individual organism's
environment, to try to understand better why an organism is built the
way it is. (What about self-assembly of circulatory systems. Makes it
easier to connect the parts and get all resources and services from
point A to point B?). Does Sam Sweet consider the organism form to
some kind of Factory? Viscera manufacture the goods and maintain basic
existence and housekeeping and the somatic components get the bag of
guts to move around to get more goods).

(5). And now, in my last argument in CENTRALIZATION and
DECENTRALIZATION is the concern of the structure and processes of
human societies (which is a subject discussed by Larull, absurdity).
Larull argued that the organization of human societies is not just
dependent upon the number of people (my argument of scale), and the
CHOICE of operation of governnance (like we choose democracy or
communism, whatever, another time), but is also TECHNOLOGY-DEPENDENT-
CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION OF ENERGY SOURCES. For example, a
solar-powered-operating society would most likely operated in a
DECENTRALIZED MANNER (e.g. can't wait to have a solar power panel
glued onto my forehead to get my energy!) and a NUCLEAR-powered
society (like with France) would have to operate in a CENTRALIZED
manner, due to the properties of maintenance and operations of energy
sources.

(6). And this CENTRALIZATION and DECENTRALIZATION is ultimately
reflected in our laws pertaining to human-environmental systems.
Environmental Law can be summarized as decentralized, simultaneous
conflicting functions, retro-active piece-meal add-ons (that is SOOO
disorganized that you just want to ... pray to gawd for mercy even
though gawd may not exist (or may exist but hasn't been doing his or
her or its job err jobs) and most of the time you think gawd is just
not worth discussing or thinking about because you have better things
to think about).

But ultimately, natural selection has weeded out decentralized systems
and the ones left standing are somewhat centralized, so if this global
leaf cutter ant colony wants to stay in one piece, it's gotta sync up
its fragmented, disorganized piecemeal.

So, this gets into my housemate, Julie Ekstrom's research who explored
spatial-temporal lagtimes in law, Gaps and Overaps of laws, scaling
effects in law, ecosystem and institution matching ad mismatching. She
was visually demonstrating the lack of syncing up of multiple
simutlaneously conflicting parts and functions. Dude. Julie is like
flippin' genius for such a simple, and beautiful project. Complexity
reduced into simplicity. She's destined to be an academic subgawd. And
bless Fortune, I happened to be her housematey. But is this the point
or beside the point? It's very much to the point, CENTRALIZATION AND
DECENTRALIZATION.

So, CENTRALIZATION and DECENTRALIZATION of wiring is also present in
HUMAN THOUGHT PROCESSES. For example, males versus females. My friend,
Herschel, gave me some scientific papers showing evidence how male
brains have more cells but are less interconnected (primarily in the
corpus callosum), but female brains have less brain cells but are more
interconnected (through the corpus callosum). So, for me, I have a
theory my corpus callosum must be flippin' huge and very well
interconnected, and secondly I think I have a huge prefrontal cortex,
though I don't have a huge memory bank (I suck at Jeopardy but am
great at survival and improvised problem-solving. I learn assumptions,
methods, and matrices, structures of knowledge, not cram my head with
details). Is this the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LINEAR AND NON-LINEAR
REASONING? I am obsessed to connect the dots but other people are
satiated with ideas being distinct, separate entities? My father and I
think that George Bush's brain is so fixated and so linear and so
decentralized, he may not even have nor reached the intellgicence or
neurological structure of a fish.

So, given my march through a more Integrative Understanding of
Centralization and Decentralization, I shall finally now progress onto
the notion of... science fiction ideas.

My first science fiction idea revolves around the notion that IF A
FISH, A FROG, A CROCODILE, A BIRD, AN ARMADILLO, AND AN APE MADE A
MOVIE, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE? I would argue, compared to human-
constructed films, which align (1) multi-layered visuals (2) audio
music (3) audio narrative on top of each other in a synced up fashion,
I would assume that if a fish made a movie, a fish would only tune in
and tune out certan senses, like there would be a blip of audio, a
blip of visual, and a blip of olfactory senses (which we don't make
smelling-based films, wished we did), but they would be linear
experience, and one experience at a time, it would not have the
capacity to stack up on top of each other and process all at the same
time, so progressing from a fish, we would go into the brains of
amphibians (brief blips of vision? What did Sam say?), reptiles,
birds, and mammals, and I would assume some organisms have senses or
sensory processing systems that we don't have (like sonar,
echolocation, heat senses, pressure senses), we couldn't really
experience unless we translated them to the visual world, how would
smell be processed visually? Could we map olfactory cues into a
physical landscape and map their meanings? Emotions? Sexual cues?
Anyhoo, I would assume over time, that there would be finer resolution
images, and more stacking and integrative layering of visual and and
overall sensory cues. Till you get to humans and I created a multi-
layered Dartboard Model on How to Manipulate Humans, from Sensory of
Centralized Processing Systems. THIS IDEA SHOULD DEFINITELY BE
EXPLORED IN A FILM. THE NOTION OF ANIMAL PERCEPTION AND DECENTRALIZED-
CENTRALIZED EXPERIENTIALISM OF REALITY. I feel like I am becoming more
like Errol Morris every single day.

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

My Second Science Fiction Idea was Mentioned in Class by Dr. Sam
Sweet, and the idea is "Why I'm not a Jellyfish."

People typically seem to be confused about their Gender and Sexual
Identities. And for me? I seem to be more so confused by my own
Biological Identity,
which I am currently exploring in a piece called Pink with Yellow
Pokadots, documenting a blow up of Terra the Biogeek in front of Buz
the Geobum, while they were both simultaneously filling out graduate
application forms. They both reached the section about "revealing your
racial/ethnic identity." And Buz mindlessly asks Terra, "Are you
White?" And Terra flips out to the Nth degree, "What do you mean I'm
White? Caucasian?!" And in a five-minute rant about her True
Biological, Ecological and Evolutionary Identity, venturing from her
features of being a eukaryotic metazoan, bilaterian coelomate, to
being a bipedal, motile terrestrial vertebrate with excessively
creative hyperassociative neurological functions, "I'll be dxmmed that
I'm a Caucasian! White!!!" What kind of useless criteria of
identification is this. Like I'm some bland piece of white toast ready
to be slammed into the toaster or something. I'm a little bit more
colorful than that! I'll be dxmmed I'm pink with yellow pokadots, and
if it doesn't show out here (in her physical forms) it's definitely in
here.". She points to her brain. And she recommends to Buz that he
also mentions the "declined to state" check box for ethnic identity,
because ultimately the White Male is the most Financially and
Ethnically Discriminated Graduate Student in terms of extramural
funding opportunities. Talk about Reverse Discrimination. So, I am
exploring how human identity is explored in ecological, evolutionary,
and geologic terms. At least Terra is Half Greek, Half Mut.

I think this story of WHY I'M NOT A JELLY FISH will be an ultimate
adventure between the ontogeny and phylogeny of the interaction
between genes and developmental biology of organisms. A very journey
through space and time of early life of organisms, which will
ultimately be an argument that the structure of biological reality
essentially mirrors the composition of a multi-track piece of music,
much like the Rite of Spring. You may lay down the first track of
genetic code, and that the code might dictated the beat, drum and
bass, and melody, but each successive track built upon the DNA (like
proteins and such) may take orders from the original frame of DNA
instruction, but also has the capacity to influence and have feedback
right back to the DNA. I don't think it's top-down control, but must
be interactive control and management with a top-down directionality
of instruction from DNA. This is flipping me out right now to think of
this stuff. Welcome to the world of epigenetics. Tah-Dah! Genes and
"Environment" (whether internal or external environment of the
organism) are in chronic feedback with each other, from molecular to
macro-organismal scale.

Flippin' trippin' shxt, eh?

So, one day I will have to watch a movie and take a class in
developmental biology, and one day I will be able to write an Essay on
Why I'm not a Jellyfish. But what else I could possibly be? I think if
I take developmental biology, I might go a little bit crazy with too
many science fiction ideas.

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

So, now, given all the interesting things we have learned in Dr. Sam
Sweet's course in concern of the plumbing and wiring of organisms...
in terms of not neceessarily "optimal design" but the designs that
haven't been weeded out yet, Dr. Sweet at one point made a comment
about the tubing of the circulatory system. If the tubes are of equal
diameter, there is a low branching angle, if the tubing is of
dichotomized diameters (one thick and one thin), there is an increased
branching angle, up to 90 degrees, I believe. These designs are
optimal such that given all the Fluid Mechanics-based physics, it
minimizes turbulence. Now that we see the engineering design of
plumbing and pipes... he made sure there was no Joe Plummer in the
classroom, all pipes, large and small, are usually constructed at 90
degree angles. There would be dramatic increase in energy efficiency.

That is actually VERY scary to think about. Just through this one
example, shows that the human engineering world is non-optimal in one
to several ways, perhaps in terms of fundamental principles of energy
flow and networks. Besides structural design. Like oh fxck. Where is
my brain taking me here?

So, Milton Love says, Science Fiction is essentially a "what if"
scenario. What if the black hole were in a lunch bucket. What would
the universe be like?
Interesting, but my "what if" question here is, WHAT IF ALL
ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN SOCIETIES WERE DERIVED FROM
UNDERSTANDING THE MECHANICS OF BIOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGICAL DESIGN?!!
What would the world look like?

Maybe we would be living in worlds such that we would have cool houses
made by ceramicist Scott Chatenever? Dude. I would live in his little
ceramic sculptures any day. Now, if only I were the size of an ant.
Sigh.

Shxt. I need to take a Fluid Mechanics Course. Dxmmit. Besides
Developmental Biology. And Microbiology. And Mycology. And some kind
of basic Principles of Engineering Course. And... and... and.... The
basic principle is that my frame of reference for understanding
Reality is rooted in Biology--primarily from Sam Sweet's courses--and
that essentially knowledge from these courses is causing me to
reinterpret Reality Designed by Humans, which was largely designed in
a philosophical divorce between human world and the biological world.

So, what is this engineered world based on? Newtonian Mechanics,
right? I have two engineer housemates. I'll just go talk to them. I
don't know what the hxll I'm talking about.

Right now, it would be REALLY nice if my brain would shut up.

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

Philosophical/Conceptual Derivations of Fragmentation in Societies.
Periods of Fragmentation and Decentraliation and Recentralization-Re-
integration of Societies.
Waxing and Waning of Government Regulation of Business Trade.
It's all the same though it seems different.
Decentralization Leads to the Parasite State. The Predator State.

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

So, I just talked with Kyle about the situations.... As an engineer,
reality is described in largely Newtonian Mechanics, and so I asked,
what would the world look like if it were strictly Newtonian Mechanics
or strictly Non-linear systems, what would a bed be designed like? Ha,
ha, ha.
He says it's a legitimate system, like how would we reconsider
engineering design based on our understanding of "optimality" in
biological and geological systems.

I also told Kyle that perhaps in terms of the localized nuts and bolts
of human societies (say, for example, this house), it seems to operate
in the form of Newtonian physics. Even biological systems can be
described in Newtonian Mechanics, to some degree. But, when you start
to understand the design and organization of cities and larger scale
networks, like a global society, that's where I feel non-linear
systems and fractal-based math may have more application.

I also remember about Melanie (a graduate student under Dr. Geoffrey
West, I believe), that discussing the notion of decentralized versus
centralized nervous and circulatory systems, versus decentralized and
centralized technologies (like computer systems), what would be more
optimal in design? I suppose, based on what function?

Math only optimally describes reality and attempts to PREDICT reality.
Not necessarily... EXPLAIN it. We still don't answer the WHY question.
It just becomes simply "is." Sam Sweet talked about that in evolution
class. The "why" question becomes moot to some degree.

Nuclear powered societies don't necessarily have to be "centralized,"
given that you have the capacity to trust every single human being,
each human could have a micro nuclear power plant around their belt.
Uh. No.

First, you have to have some degree of quasi independent evolution of
building the parts, and then the retroa-active potential integration
of the parts. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE PERIODS OF CENTRALIZATION,
DECENTRALIZATION, AND RE-INTEGRATION all throughout evolution, from
biochemical to organismal to neurological to technological to even the
societal level (deregulated, decentralized government system versus re-
centralized government systems, growth and decline of government
systems).

Shut up, Vic's BRAIN!

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

Science Fiction: A Grand Adventure of Magnanimous Proportions!"

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

That was a quote from Lisa Berry. Kudos!

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

Another science fiction question raised by Dr. Sweet through
evolutionary vertebrate morphology (even some of the works of Vogel):
What if all human engineered structures built based on understanding
of non-linear systems? Non-linear physics and mathematics? How would
the world be different? How would Newtonian-mechanics based world be
replaced by non-linear systems design? Design of cities? Management of
climate? Ecosystems? Restructuring city design much like capillaries-
veins-artery complexes?

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

These two ideas will be PRESENT in REPLICATE EARTHS, but can stand on
their own:
(1). Series of Experiments with Lord of the Flies: What if you had a
series of experiments with Children landing on an Island with an
Airplane Crash? Instead of being all boys, what if they were part
boys, part girls? What if they were all girls? What if they were
predominantly girls? What if they were left-handed? What if they are
all right-handed? Or mixed? From what different backgrounds? What kind
of rules, governance?
(2). Eighth Continent: What if humans had an Eighth Continent to
colonize? Like Jefferson and Washington and the like had an
opportunity to start and build from scratch? Given all that we have
learned, how would we design this society such that it would be
"sustainable" or "on the right foot" from scratch? I shared this ideas
with my fisheries friend Diane--and her response is that we would
abandon ship right away and colonize that continent. And I also shared
the idea with Ernst the former Dean of Bren, and his response was that
his writing was based on "reality" and what is available right now,
and was not based on a "social experiment," but I told him though that
if we do not have a social experiment in mind on how to we design a
socioecological system or a "panarchy" based society that we would not
have an integrated view of governance, environmental governance
globally is fragmented and piecemeal. No one has taken as step outside
the box and asked "What is our goal? Then what is utopia?" We know
"there is a problem" but then "what is the solution?" What is a
baseline for utopia? And what are the reasoning and methods for
designing Utopia that accounts for the socioecological relative
context of individual human existence? How do you design a society
with a given landscape based on a "relative self" definition? Rather
than a "selfish self."
**I had two "creative silly projects" one in 9th grade and one time in
Costa Rica. In Costa Rica, biologists had to decide what is better for
reserve design: few big or several small? The fun part was that I had
the opportunity to draw a map and we had to make our own little
society. I drew the map based on the topography of the Santa Barbara
area. Craig didn't seem to mind. He laughed at my "definition of self"
especially the replication part. I thought the occassion was otherwise
stupid because it was a bunch of biologists talking petty amongst
themselves, biologists would not survive in a stakeholder group
otherwise--consisting of policy-makers, land-managers, economists,
journalists, citizens, businessment. Biologists would look stupdi for
arguing what they argue about. It's not an all-inclusive value system.
They only cared about species diversity, not about other human needs
and values.
**On the second occasion, Ms. Camacho, my brilliant, creative 9th
grade English teacher, made us cranky 9th grader students get into
groups and design our own utopia. I forgot it was based on what book.
I think we were reading Animal Farm. George Orwell. I drew a map of
Maui (we had just been there over the summer) and we called it Yuri
Island. I was always in charge of the art. I was always drawing the
maps. Of course. My dad and I take charge of those kinds of things. We
made our own little utopia, and though it seemed like a fun project, I
have now taken it to the next level. It's now serious. And we do have
to ask abou the 8th Continent. There is a book out called the Eighth
Continent, but they are mandating that this continent is actually
"your mind."

I think we need the Blank Slate. We need utopia. Science fiction, to
advance ourselves as a society, to the next ste of... practical
change....

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

The Other AA. Instead of having a silly, boring salespitch for making
a non-profit organization called "Alternative Addictions" (to which I
made a pitch to the Goleta chapter of Toastmasters), I decided to
write a science fiction story. People from the Toastmasters Meeting
were completely in shock about the all-encompassing proposition of my
club. They already immediately started re-assessing their lives about
"needing alternative addictions" (e.g. people smoking too much or
working too hard without having any breaks).

So, I was leaving Riverside--2-3 days of hard work of probing into the
lairs of my mind--and then it struck me in the car during the time of
sunset. Rabbits! RABBITS!!! Yes! Yes! Yes!!! The main cast of
characters will be rabbits on an island! There was a classic case
study--not in Australia, but some island around there--where rabbits
were introduced onto an island, and they ate every last bit of green
to a point of self-extinction. The whole bacteria on a petri-dish
phenomenon. So, the presence of other rabbits--or too many self-
similar organisms can lead to decreased individual fitness. So, I
decided to do a parody of the situation such that these rabbits--
learning from past mistakes--have the ability to self-organize and
govern, and they attempt to construct an Alternative Addictions
program for themselves.

I was imagining in the car about a bunch of rabbits existing on an
island, doing what rabbits usually do--drink, eat, shxt, play, sleep,
copulate, make many more rabbits--and maybe run away from predators.
But I suppose in this case, the island had no predators, so there was
no running away from anything, except for risk of disease.

There was a little stubborn male rabbit, Bongo or Bingo or some cute
name like that, who just did what he liked to do, whatever, without
even considering that where were consequences for his actions (more
like the American credit card mentality, impulsive behavior with no
consideration of consequences for ones actions). This mischievious
rabbits did what rabbits usually did, and spent a lot of time playing
with his peers.

Then there was a call for a huge gathering of the island.

**The problem, to what degree are people willing to give up individual
rights for collective co-existence of the common good? When is there
collapse / anarchy? (too many organisms packed with too few
resources?)
**The second problem is, this wise, wise, elder rabbit called all the
rabbits to come together and discuss the situation--most of the
rabbits were very confused. Some rabbits go to AA meetings because
they have individual vices--like they eat too much, they have a
terminal disease, they have addictions, like opiate-like grasses,
addicted to alcohol substances--so they call come together, share
their vulnerabilities and stories, and try to overcome their
addictions.
**So, the elder rabbits says "We all need to find plan B. We need to
run to alternative activities rather than dwell upon the vices we
attempt to resist." That is a universal truth for individuals and the
collective. The primary point that the elder rabbit makes is "You are
all wondering why you are here today. All of you have not done
anything wrong. You as individuals have no vices. You have not done
anythig bad. So, there is no incentives as individuals to come here
today to AA. But there is a problem here, you see. As they looked at
the rapidly changing landscape, biotubated and bulldozed by their
rabbit activites--hmmm--there are lots of rabbits. The problem is that
when you add up all the little tiny behaviors of all individuals,
there is a summation, additive effect, mass accumulation effect that
is very bad as a whole, for the whole system of rabbits, as well as
the individual rabbit. The individual rabbit did not do anything
wrong, but the mass accumulation of all other behaviors of other
rabbits comes back to hurt the individual rabbit. And so that is why I
call you here today. That, we are here today to attend AA, not because
it is a problem of the "I" and the "me," but today, we are addressing
the larger, greater problem of the "me in context of we."

**The little skeptical rabbit says, "Well, we are doing what we are
doing. We are being 'wabbits.' How can you violate that? How can you
change us from being who we are and what we are doing? We are just
'wabbits.'" We eat and drink and poop and play and mate and make new
rabbits all day long?

**The Elder Said: Yes, this is a good point. Very good point, my son.
And so, I propose to you, what can we do, all of us, if we changed one
or a few tiny things in our lives, how can we create a better world
for ourselves? (Lady Bird Johnson convince people stop littering). And
all the rabbits, though they were usually in their Credit Card mode--
immediately, impulsively selfish--came to realize the broader context,
and came to understand why they all needed to go to AA. So, all the
rabbits scratched out ideas and marked leaves and blades of scrap
grass filaments, and they all voted on what they can do to make this
island more habitable for everyone--without sacrificing too much of
being a rabbit--feeling upset and imprisoned. Everyone was willing to
give up (1) less rabbit-making (2) rabbits recycle--eating more of
their poop (3) rabbits more careful about how much food they eat (4)
confining certain activities to certain parts of the island--play is
separate from the places where the grass and plants grow very thick.

**All the rabbits were convinced of the Elder. They were on a tiny
island, and they could see the consequences of their bioturbation--
perturbations with their very eyes and all their senses. The Elder
said that with such wisdome and realization, that these rabbits will
do much better in ecological self-regulation than other creatures--
like bacteria and humans. The elder applauds all the rabbits, and
every single rabbit felt that he or she contributed to the greather
good. The more rabbits and less resources on an island, the more the
rabbits were forced to live less impulsively, and forced more and more
to live thoughtfully and think twice. And so the young skeptical
rabbit grew up and was happy to see that the island of rabbits still
existed and lived "happily ever after." Self-regulation self-
sustaining system. The baby rabbit grew up and learned a lesson.

**There should be one more adventure of the baby boy rabbit should go
through to learn that impulsive behavior is bad and that it is
important to think twice.

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

**One other thing. All the rabbits were DESENSITIZED to "what was good
or bad" or how landscapes used to look like
**Little kids were born in a city--that is their baseline--what they
knew. They don't know anything better.
**They didn't know how it used to look like before--so the elder had
to remind everyone--especially the younger generation, how the land
used to look like
and how the quality of life used to be like. Paint a picture of the
past!
**Shiftng Baseline Syndrome