Technology takeover

I never use Google Chrome unless I'm using someone else's device, but I was reading this article about someone changing from Chrome.

One sentence made me realise that my prior gut feeling that too much technology is dangerous is true:
"In other words, Google was still able to reach into my machine and forcibly update my software."

I have often been cautious of technological privacy, closing down my Facebook account back in 2009, never using Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and many others. My online presence is considerably limited compared with the vast majority of people.

One update from Facebook, many years ago, made it possible for everyone to view your profile and everything posted... with a privacy option to disable it if you didn't want it.

Software developers often send out updates. This is to be expected, since new technology often prevents old software from working correctly/effectively, and can provide new opportunities.

But I get concerned when it's forced upon us. Adobe Flash Player is one of my pet hates: as soon as a new update is available, everything which uses it seems to stop working until it is updated. When I go to update it, it pre-checks a little box asking me whether I would like to install McAfee antivirus as well. The 'auto-completion' is what annoys me, the assumption that I clearly want a particular product in addition to the one I've sought out.

Although Adobe Flash stops working when an update is released, at least it lets me do the updating in my own time.

When I recently upgraded to Windows 10, I spent about two hours going through all the privacy settings, switching everything off so that I didn't broadcast to the world.
Being a UK citizen, I often want to find out things from the UK, not my current location.
I don't want other devices to 'see' my device because they might find a way to install unwanted programs/viruses.

Google still insists that I make it my homepage, when it is already my homepage.

A recent update to Firefox means I had to cope with a 'Firefox Screenshots' icon, a feature I didn't want and won't use. I didn't ask for it, it just appeared. I eventually found a way to remove it, but it wasn't through the usual method of removing extensions, it was more involved.

Just a few months ago, Microsoft announced they were going to remove Paint in an update. This meant that a program I had used for many years would be removed from my system without my approval. Thankfully, Microsoft had underestimated how many people loved Paint, and so it (currently) still remains.

But it's that attitude of "We can to do to your computer whatever we want" that really gets me.

Imagine reading a book. You like it, so some time later you read it again, but the story's changed.

Many books get updated, but the old editions are still around (albeit hard to find sometimes). Software used to be like that. But the new world of technology assumes that updates are always better, faster, more perfect.

And, to top it all off, new updates can override your previous settings (also mentioned in the article at the start of this post). This means that people will have to go through all their settings every time a new update is installed for a piece of software. But also, a new update could change the settings so that you no longer have the option to 'opt-out' of the privacy risk.

The scariest part is that it's a step towards the 'self-awareness' of technology that films such as Terminator 2 and I, Robot use as science-fiction plot lines.

The current problem is that technology companies are called to account for their actions only after the update has been released and caused issues. Which means, if the issues are quashed, the company gets away with it. It's no secret that younger people are more technologically tuned in, but their desperation to keep up with the current social trend means they may not always read the small print, and companies can use them to get their product out there before the dangers become apparent.

We need to be smart with our use of technology.

'Equality' is not evolutionary

In my recent post on equality, I mentioned that life does not support equality (as it is currently understood).

To take this a step further, nature itself does not support equality. The evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest only works in an elitist environment. The 'fittest' are the elite, which is why they survive.

Interestingly, since evolution relies on the extinction of species for new species to progress, the idea of things like saving the tigers goes completely against evolution.

Species are not equal. Nature does not support equality. The universe does not support equality: our planet is better suited to life than every other planet in our solar system (and possibly the whole universe), it is not 'equal' with other planets in this area!

So 'equality' is a notion that can only be applied to humans. As a result, we must be careful about its application. Current societal trends based on the false application of 'equality' are jeopardising future reproduction of the human race,* which could essentially lead to our own extinction.

Perhaps we've got equality wrong.
Perhaps we've got evolution wrong.


* Homosexual couples cannot reproduce naturally. People who undergo gender reassignment surgery (aka a sex change) essentially have their sex organs mutilated, preventing reproduction. If this were to continue, the future of the human race would be hugely dependent on scientific advancement.

Transgender issues now causing confusion

I recently read this article.

I have mentioned before (twice: here and here) that the current trend of gender indoctrination is an unrecognised form of child abuse.

The article I read shows that children can become confused with the current trend. The LGBT community want us to believe that transgenderism is normal and acceptance of it is part of a progressive society. Such cases of children being confused when their friend comes to school dressed as the opposite gender will be suppressed for the sake of their cause.

But what is the child to do? Should children be forced to accept transgenderism as normal? Because that could be seen in the same light as forcing a trans-obsessed person to remain the sex they were born with.

This article shows how autism is beginning to be ignored for the sake of transgenderism, preventing a young person from the help they really need.

Transgenderism is taking us to places which have quite horrific consequences.

What does "equality" really mean?

Equality has become one of those buzzwords. By saying, "For the sake of equality..." the implication is that if someone disagrees with you, they are prejudiced, sexist, intolerant, bigoted, or a number of other derogatory words.

But just what is equality?
It has it's roots in the word equal, of things being the same or of equal value. And yet, you look at society, and it seems that the quote from Animal Farm is more accurate, that "some... are more equal than others."

Over the course of history, due to the differences between men and women, certain 'gender roles' developed. Things like men being soldiers and hunters whilst women looked after the family and cooked. As time moved on, and the 'hunter-gatherer' theme diminished, a man's role was replaced with being the one to work. Much of the work could have been done by men or women, but due to historical influence, it was assumed to be the man's responsibility. With the feminist movement, this came to be seen as if special privileges were given to men, that men were 'more equal' than women.

Unfortunately, the feminist movement didn't stop with equality. Their crusade essentially became one of vengeance, of wanting 'one-up' on men, of women being 'more equal' for a change.

Personally, I am a big supporter of equality. But it has to be understood as equality. I believe that if two people are doing the same job, they should be paid the same amount, regardless of whether one is male and the other female.

But I like to ask the awkward questions: if I were to take the majority of a year off work to look after a child, should I expect to be paid for not working? It sounds harsh, because we live in a world which has 'maternity leave' and to suggest that a woman should surrender her income if she wants a family has come to sound abhorrent and unjust. With the increased financial responsibility of an additional person in the family, to surrender income seems like a double-whammy of hardship.

And so, equality laws have been made to allow for 'paternity leave': for the man to have time off work to help support the family with the new-born. However, this isn't exactly equal as the husband has far less time off than his wife.

But what about companies? Does a CEO really want to be paying employees for not working? The problem with the welfare state is that people are getting money for nothing. Just as people find ways around the system to claim large amounts of benefits to avoid working, so a woman could work up to a good job and then aim to have children at regular intervals so that she can work the minimum amount of time to then be eligible for the maximum amount of maternity leave. She would end up with a large family and a well-paid job without needing to work the whole time.

This is why equality is such a difficult issue.

And it's not helped with the current trend of entitlement. How often do young couples sit down and ask, "With our current income, can we afford to have a family?" How often does a husband change his job before having a family in order to better support having a family?

The current cultural trend is that a person should be allowed to do what they want, and the government (or employers) have to do their part to help that person.

And this is where society gets messy. Equality has become synonymous with entitlement, but it's more politically correct and persuasive.

Just think of a man saying to his employer, "Since women are entitled to maternity leave, how are you fulfilling your obligations to my entitlement to paternity leave?"
Compared with: "How does this company fulfil it's requirement of equality regarding paternity leave?"

Current societal trends are such that if a person can't get what they want, it must be an equality issue. Essentially, a selfish person can be represented as a victim of inequality.

For centuries - millennia, even - marriage has been between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is about people wanting to have their same-sex relationship elevated to the level of a real marriage. Throughout history, some men and women have engaged in homosexual activities, and they have known that it is against the natural order of things. But the current trend is to make out that this is an equality issue: that a person who chooses to engage in homosexual activity is entitled to the same 'rights' as heterosexual people who are legally married.

By treating it as an equality issue, we now have to consider the morality of allowing homosexual couples to adopt children: whether depriving those children of a mother or father (and the imbalance and mental problems that will cause) is more important than the 'equality' of viewing a same-sex partnership as a marriage.

The next big 'equality' issue is that of transgenderism. Healthcare was developed to fight illnesses and diseases, to prolong human life and to prevent it from ending prematurely. As experimentation continued, we now have the issue of whether someone who decides they want to be the opposite sex is entitled to have that operation under their standard medical care service. Should such a person be viewed as a person wanting plastic surgery to change their appearance, 'entitled' to have to pay the bill themselves?

It becomes an equality issue: that all people should be comfortable with their body (and that it is the healthcare service's duty to enable this). So what, then, do we make of the people who are not comfortable with their body and want plastic surgery for things other than genital mutilation?

But the 'equality' here is going too far. Already there are thoughts of lowering the age of starting medical treatment for a sex change, due to a mindset that children should be considered equal to adults. But this form of equality would cause significant moral issues: would a child be equal to an adult when it comes to, for example, drinking alcohol? Driving a car? Voting? Giving consent for a sexual relationship?

The equality argument is a pseudo argument.

Does equality mean that we should all be free to choose which sex we want to be?
Or should equality mean that we should all learn to live with the body we were born with?
Because even equality doesn't allow for us to choose the genitals we're born with.

It seems that some people feel that equality is about life being equally easy/difficult for each person. So if a person finds life really tough, allowances should be made for them.

But the truth is that life does not support equality. Some people find it easy to make money. Some people are more intelligent than others (some people use their intelligence too). Some people are more athletic. Some people can eat a huge meal and not put on weight. Humans are all different, but we have to live in the same world. We just have to "play the hand we're dealt".

Different people have different struggles and we just have to get through. Yes, we should help each other. We can't say, "Hey, I got dealt a bad hand, we need to change the game we're playing."

Essentially, it's the 'snowflakes' who want the allowances to be made. And that mindset is affecting older generations who now ask, "Well, why do they get special privileges?"

We need to help these people cope with life, not change the rules to suit themselves.

It's not about equality. The real issue is resilience.

Expectations, happiness... and reality

Here's something interesting I found:
Why Generation Y Yuppies are Unhappy
Quite funny, but with some truth in there.

I also recently wrote about the lies of 'happiness'.

Gay marriage

For a Christian, marriage is about far more than one person loving another. Society says that people should be free to love and marry whoever they want, and that includes people of the same sex.

For a Christian, this is simply not an option. It goes far beyond the individual verses which speak out against homosexuality (Lev 18:22 and Rom 1:26-27). It is to do with the real reason for marriage and God's relationship with people.

The Old Testament makes it clear that God's relationship with Israel is symbolised by marriage: the Lord God is the husband and the nation of Israel is the wife or bride (e.g. Jer 31:32). In the New Testament, Jesus the Messiah is the husband and the church is the bride (e.g. Eph 5:21-32).

The symbolism is clearly male-female. The Divine is male (God, Jesus) and the human is female (Israel, the church). It could be said that the relationship is "hetero" and not "homo": male and female are different; the Divine and human are different.

The Old Testament speaks of Israel's adultery towards God (e.g. Ez 16:32-33) when the Israelites began serving idols and false gods instead of the Lord God. It is interesting to note the connection with adultery and prostitution, which seems lost in today's culture.

Leviticus 18 lays out God's laws against sexual immorality (including homosexuality and incest), because a marriage in a broken world (i.e. after Genesis 3, where humans sinned and all humanity suffers punishment because of it) cannot work with close family members, and studies show that human inbreeding greatly increases genetic defects (see here for an overview).

So where does homosexuality fit in? Or, more precisely, what is the spiritual significance of gay marriage?

Let's recap:
- Heterosexual marriage symbolises the devotion between God and His people (or between Jesus and the church).
- Adultery symbolises Israel's (or the church's) desire for a god other than the Lord God.
- Prostitution/promiscuity, which follows from adultery, symbolises Israel's (or the church's) passion for devoting themselves to many other gods ( more than just 'spiritual flirting') or the current social trend (e.g. materialism).

Therefore, gay marriage amongst Christians could be symbolic of:

1. The Lord God's devotion to himself (for male-male marriage, as God is symbolised as the male partner in the marriage) or God's people's devotion to themselves (for female-female marriage, as Israel and the church are symbolised by the female partner in the marriage).
2. The Father-Son relationship between God and Jesus ('homoessence' or something like the greek 'homoousion' since God and Jesus are both Divine).

Option 1 shows self-indulgence, which is a problem (and homosexuality, as with any lustful relationship, is essentially self-indulgent: refusing to deny oneself for the sake of the Kingdom or marriage).

Option 2 shows a misunderstanding of the relationship between God and Jesus: Jesus did not sacrifice himself for God (which could be seen as a form of divine child abuse), he sacrificed himself for his bride, God's people. Ephesians 5:21-32 would have to be re-written. Alternatively, this view could imply some sort of divine incest. Either way, there's a problem.

Essentially, due to the symbolic nature of it, Christian marriage must be heterosexual. Any deviation would be an abomination, the same as defiling the Lord's Temple, along similar lines of Caligula erecting a statue in the Temple in Jerusalem.

But don't misunderstand me: God loves all people, and that includes heterosexuals as well as homosexuals and every other modern identity people wish to label themselves with. What people wish to do with each other is for them to decide. We all make mistakes, and we all have a habitual sin of some kind. We need to work through those things in our own time and not force a change on people who aren't ready for it.

Whilst I have no real issue with non-Christians wanting to engage in homosexual partnerships (they have chosen not to live under God's rule, which carries its own consequences), there is a huge issue when it comes to Christians wishing to redefine marriage. It is not purely about feelings and desires, there is divine symbolism entwined with Christian marriage.

As such, it must not be tampered with.