01 January 2021 ~ 14 Comentarios

Futurae

Por Alonso Correa

Las horas finales de este estrambótico año están llegando. Las situaciones en la que nos hemos visto envueltos nos acompañarán más allá de las 12 campanadas del Año Nuevo. Estos cuatro dígitos se tatuarán en el imaginario colectivo y serán el lienzo de aventuras futuras. Estos meses nos han mostrado la impredecibilidad del futuro. Lo mucho que pueden llegar a cambiar los planes, los lugares y las personas con solo una modificación en el estilo de vida. Pero de aquí, de esta gran circunstancia en la que estamos sumergidos, podemos revelar la gran enseñanza que nos ha querido regalar el Universo: debemos alejarnos del pensamiento del final de cuento de hadas. No somos, ni seremos jamás, la última versión de nosotros mismos.

Somos fluidos, flexibles. Cambiamos con las temporadas, con los meses, con los días, con los minutos; no estamos sujetos a las cadenas de lo imperecedero, nos encontramos siempre en el trabajo de mejorar, actualizar y evolucionar nuestro ego. Esta es una idea que no debe escapar de nuestra cabeza, es importante recordar cada tanto tiempo esta noción.

Un ejemplo claro de este fenómeno psicológico es pensar en cómo era el mundo hace 20, 10 o 5 años. Pensar en los gustos que teníamos, el corte de pelo o la ropa que usábamos. Siempre existe algo de aquello que no termina de cuadrar en nuestra conciencia actual, algo que creemos que no deberíamos haber usado. Ese cambio es la fluidez de nuestra personalidad. Lo líquida que resulta ser la mente humana. Lo importante es conocer que todos esos cambios fueron los que nos trajeron aquí, recordar sin arrepentimiento nuestra imagen pasada.

Eso es lo que a muchos jóvenes les sucederá dentro de una década o dos. A una generación que se ha dejado llevar por todos los vicios tratando de normalizar conductas perversas y dejando tras de sí un rastro de decadencia. Verán, después de que los años de bacanales y estupefacientes pasen, lo vacío de su interior. Su abandono de toda espiritualidad, su amplia repulsión a la tradición y sus ganas de apoyar el ascenso de ideologías podridas, les traerán amargos recuerdos cuando los aceche la penumbra de su ayer.

Pronto saldrán a cuestionar el peso de la historia de una persona. Queriendo regresar a la sociedad que ellos mismos abandonaron. Van a regresar lamentándose de sus acciones en la Red y de las repercusiones que estas traerán consigo en el mundo real. Su castillo de naipes está en juego, el dinero no aparece de la nada y las deudas no se pagan con “buenas acciones”. Su discursillo correctivo de poco les va a servir contra la imparable fuerza del tiempo que corre.

Los gobiernos actuales marcan el paso de lo que las juventudes de la izquierda buscan. Pagas por vagancia, ayudas y subsidios; los nuevos bohemios han encontrado en los partidos socialistas su ganso de los huevos de oro. Una máquina de imprimir billetes que no decepciona a la hora de llenarle los bolsillos a más de cuatro holgazanes que los siguen. Una relación parasitaria mutua, unos reciben billetes a cambio de lealtad y la otra parte mantiene sometida a la sociedad con el músculo y el caos que atraen a las masas de sus seguidores.

Pero vamos a ver, con el paso de las primaveras, cómo el remordimiento y la pesadumbre por sus acciones hará estragos en la psique de la sociedad futura. Los millones que crecieron sin recibir un ‘no’ verán cómo las consecuencias los terminarán atrapando. Es ahí cuando aprenderán que toda acción tiene una reacción, que esta paranoia global tenía que caer, y muchos voltearán a ver su historia con pena y agobio.

14 Responses to “Futurae”

  1. Víctor López 2 January 2021 at 2:05 pm Permalink

    Se ha expresado bonito, Correa. Pero no aprenderán nada y probablemente nos arrastren irremediablemente a todos en su caída (como en Venezuela). El interés por la propiedad privada, que es la base de la república, se machaca como una perversión, y esto no es de nueva factura. Durante todo el siglo XX se entretuvieron intelectuales y pensadores en erosionarla, y a tal punto es la sugestión que no hay siquiera en este blog alguien que se atreva a dignificarla.

    Ni vale la pena extenderse, prácticamente la totalidad de los individuos del subcontinente somos sujetos de terapia, y se nos hace tragar el cuento que se quiera. Los representantes y “formadores de opinión” (que por supuesto la “opinión” no puede formarse sino incrustarse) no cumplen otra función que repetir la moda, y para ejemplo la basura regada por Montaner en este su blog, durante todo el año 2020. Cordialmente.

  2. Julian Perez 2 January 2021 at 3:57 pm Permalink

    >>Pero no aprenderán nada y probablemente nos arrastren irremediablemente a todos en su caída

    De todo corazón espero que ese pronóstico esté equivocado, pero lamentablemente hay muchos indicios de que no lo está y de que, en efecto, corren los Idus de Marzo.

    La reflexión de Correa me parece que pone muchos dedos en las verdaderas llagas. La guerra cultural que amenaza con destruir la civilización cultural comenzó en realidad en los años 60. ¨Faites l´amour, pas la guerre¨ fue en realidad una gran trampa. ¨Imagine¨, una emboscada. En aquellos años a muchos, entre los que me incluyo, nos pareció todo eso muy hermoso. Estábamos equivocados en muchas cosas. Son los mismos cantos de sirena que hoy pueden arrastrarnos al abismo.

  3. Manuel 3 January 2021 at 7:59 am Permalink

    2020 may be over, but election season is not.

    Control of the Senate — and with it, the fate of President-elect Joe Biden’s agenda — will be determined on Tuesday as voters in Georgia head to the polls in twin Senate runoff elections. Both the Rev. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff need to defeat the Republican incumbents Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue for Democratic control of the chamber

    • Julian Perez 3 January 2021 at 8:33 am Permalink

      No me siento muy optimista.

      • Julian Perez 3 January 2021 at 8:37 am Permalink

        Creo que mi diarrea de posts es porque los inminentes acontecimientos me tienen un poco nervioso. Posteo para mantener la mente entretenida.

        • Julian Perez 3 January 2021 at 8:39 am Permalink

          Perder el senado es mas peligroso que tener A Biden-Kamala en la Casa Blanca.

          • Víctor López 3 January 2021 at 8:51 am Permalink

            Es correcto.

          • Manuel 3 January 2021 at 10:59 am Permalink

            queda esa llama en Georgia
            que definirá al menos 24 meses
            hasta las del 2022

            Puede pasar de todo en esos meses
            No se amilane

          • Julian Perez 3 January 2021 at 11:17 am Permalink

            No me amilano, pero no puedo evitar estar un poco inquieto. Aparte de firmar la peticion de Marjorie Taylor y llamar a los representativos, mande 25 dolares. No es gran cosa, pero no ha llegado el cheque. Me siento un poco impotente porque no se me ocurre que otra cosa hacer (aunque en el Patriot me dicen que engrasar las armas)

  4. Manuel 3 January 2021 at 11:08 am Permalink

    Louie Gohmert and several other adamant Trump supporters in the U.S. House just filed a lawsuit targeting Mike Pence’s role as President over the Senate during the January 6 joint session of Congress.

    In the lawsuit, Gohmert, claimed the 1887 Electoral College Count Act is unconstitutional because it limits the Vice President’s powers under the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit urges Mike Pence to reject the current slate of electors and replace it with the pro-Trump electors chosen by Republicans in several key states like Arizona

  5. Manuel 4 January 2021 at 1:23 am Permalink

    “ my feeling is that 2020-21 will come to be regarded as one of those turning points in history, like 1848, 1918 and 1945, when the old world order was swept away and something new emerged. New doesn’t necessarily mean better. But I believe it is possible. Then I will happily go back to being a dog in a time of tranquillity. ■

  6. Orlando 4 January 2021 at 9:08 am Permalink

    Hay que repetir la oración de la serenidad. Se la voy a recomendar a los Trumpistas. Jajaja

    Dios concédeme la serenidad para aceptar las cosas que no puedo cambiar, el valor para cambiar las cosas que puedo, y la sabiduría para reconocer la diferencia

  7. Manuel 4 January 2021 at 9:21 am Permalink

    Why don’t wildebeest have wheels?
    There are some adaptations that evolution never seems to produce. Is that because there is a limit to its creativity, asks Michael Marshall
    f0050-02
    “From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” That was how Charles Darwin described the incredible diversity of life forms generated by evolution. But he never addressed the big question: if evolution is infinitely innovative, why hasn’t it produced animals with wheels? Are there limits to evolution’s creativity that mean some things can never evolve? And if not, why haven’t things like flying plants arisen or anything resembling a semi-automatic rifle?
    f0050-03
    (SYDNEY HANSON)
    Evolution exists because living things vary: each member of a species is subtly different to every other one. Those that are better suited to their environments are more likely to breed and pass on their genes, and so their favourable traits become more common in the population. Given enough time, this slow process can create wonders like gigantic blue whales, cooperative honeybees and towering sequoias. Evolution has produced animals that live more than 10 kilometres under the sea and bacteria that can handle doses of radiation that would kill a person many times over.
    Yet some things just don’t seem to turn up. Wheeled animals are a classic example – the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould discussed them in his 1983 book Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes – but there are many others. In a 2015 paper, Geerat Vermeij at the University of California, Davis, identified 32 combinations of traits that evolution has seemingly never produced. For instance, there are no rigid structures like coral reefs in fresh water, no plant-eating snakes and no flying plants.
    It is tempting to invent reasons why these can’t exist, but Vermeij is reluctant to place such limits on evolution. “I think very few of these are what I would characterise as… forbidden phenotypes,” he says – a phenotype being the observable physical properties of a given organism. Given more time, evolution may well produce them.
    Vermeij says we should imagine ourselves as evolutionary biologists living in the Ordovician Period, some 450 million years ago. “We couldn’t have conceived of some of the things that have actually evolved [since],” he says. “Things like flowers and flying insects. That demonstrates to me that evolution is very much a cumulative process, and what is now possible would not have been at that time.”
    Jennifer Hoyal Cuthill at the University of Essex in the UK agrees. “Biological evolution is the most unlimited process in the known universe,” she says. “Its main striking feature is its ability to produce, as far as we’ve seen, infinite diversity. We haven’t run out of new animals. We have no idea where the edges of this space might be.”
    Hoyal Cuthill says that many of the seemingly forbidden animals are examples of a kind of selective reasoning. Take the lack of plant-eating snakes. Many groups of animals have switched back and forth between eating meat and eating plants. Giant pandas are one such example: although they depend on bamboo, their ancestors were carnivores and their guts haven’t fully adapted to eating plants yet. No known snake has done this so far, which might imply that there is something about having this sort of body that is particularly suited to meat eating – or it might just be a coincidence. Hoyal Cuthill points out that snakes’ closest living relatives are lizards, many of which eat plants.
    f0051-02f0051-01
    “Projectile weapons have frequently evolved, albeit only in ambush predators”
    Vegetarian spiders
    There may also be limits to our knowledge. For decades, it was thought that all spiders were primarily carnivorous. Then, in 2009, we discovered that a species called Bagheera kiplingi mostly eats plants.
    Still, it is possible to go further and imagine much wilder scenarios. A 2007 paper by Timothy Shanahan at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles memorably asked: “Why don’t zebras have machine guns?” It argued that zebras would benefit from evolving machine guns to repel attacks by lions, but that they can’t because evolution has to proceed by intermediate steps, all of which must be advantageous – or, at least, not harmful. A machine gun is only useful when it is complete. As a functionless organ, it would just be hogging vital nutrients.
    But there may not be as strong a limit here as it first appears, says Hoyal Cuthill. “Projectile weapons have frequently evolved. Archerfish use water as a projectile weapon. Antlions use sand as a projectile weapon,” she says. These animals are all ambush predators, so it may simply be that evolution doesn’t favour projectile weapons in prey, because fleeing a predator is normally a better strategy than fighting it. The truth may not be that evolution can’t fashion a rapid-fire projectile weapon for zebras, but rather that it doesn’t do so because the existing solution – running away – works well enough.
    This suggests that evolution hasn’t even remotely reached its limits, and that over the next few hundred million years – and assuming humans don’t cause a global extinction event – it might lead to animals and plants that are inconceivable to us today.
    Vermeij argues that evolution is getting better at producing new things. “Organisms have, on the whole, become more energetic over time,” he says. It is known, for instance, that the veins running through the leaves of flowering plants have become more densely packed over millions of years, meaning modern flowering plants can extract more energy from sunlight than their ancestors could 100 million years ago. Similarly, “the average metabolic rates of things like snails and clams and many other organisms have increased over time”, says Vermeij.
    f0052-01
    Energetic expansion
    The reason for that is competition, he says. “As organisms become more energetic, they also have more choice, and they have a greater opportunity to modify their environments.”
    Vermeij says one knock-on effect may be the evolution of general intelligence in multiple animal groups: not just humans and other primates, but cetaceans like dolphins, cephalopods such as octopuses and certain birds including crows and jays. “More brainpower and greater intelligence are themselves products of greater energetic investment, and are again favoured under most circumstances because they give the bearer greater choice,” he says. The smartest organisms on Earth may be getting smarter over the ages.
    f0052-03
    That leads us back to the original question. If evolution is so precocious, why hasn’t it created a wheeled animal yet?
    Hoyal Cuthill offers a blunt answer. “Wheels are terrible,” she says. “The reason so much effort went into the development of the tank is that wheels are atrocious.” Sure, they’re fine on smooth roads but not so much on badly maintained ones. And in nature, smooth, flat surfaces are rare, so there is no reason for evolution to favour wheels.
    The other issue is whether creating a wheel that freely rotates about an axle is beyond evolution, says Vermeij. It is hard to imagine how the wheel might receive nutrients from the rest of the body, as any blood vessels would be torn away. “The wheel might be one of the very few things that may just not be accessible to living things, other than by making a machine as we have done,” says Vermeij.
    Yet he points out that even if wheels and axles aren’t possible, organisms have still found ways to travel using rotational motion. “There are spiders that manage to actively roll down a hill by using their limbs to propel themselves as they form a ball,” he says.

    Hoyal Cuthill has a final suggestion. “A ball can move rotationally with more degrees of freedom, in more directions, than a wheel on an axle,” she says. “Wheels are prone to getting stuck or falling over,” she says; balls don’t have that problem. So the reason evolution hasn’t produced wheeled creatures might simply be that it has other solutions. That’s just how natural selection rolls.

    f0052-02
    Michael Marshall is questioning his ancestors’ energetic investment ■

  8. Manuel 4 January 2021 at 10:05 am Permalink

    Los estudios son una guia, como la experiencia, son potencia.

    Luego vienen las decisiones y la construcción de un nombre: aquella potencia se hace nombre, sustantivo, resultados.

    Cuales los resultados de hitler, Chávez, los castro?

    Despejar sin lugar a dudas que eran unos animales


Leave a Reply