Hurts between my ears..

i'm no genius. i can't balance equations, or bring my feeding frenzies to a managable level. and having read that , you know how low the bar is set, as far as i'm concerened.

or is it that it's way too high..

but maybe being an imbecile puts me at a certain advantage when asked this question.

the world is incredibly dangerous. there is no end to the threats that we face. from volcanoes to runaway steam-rollers. from rampaging bacteria, to plummeting grand pianos. most of what you hear and read about in the news is not good and results ultimately in suffering ,misery and death.

but is the stupidity in this world greater in quantity, severity and effect than those myriad dangers?

that depends on how stupidity is defined.

a Texas-sized meteor, hurtling towards earth is clearly a danger. if it hits our planet, all life will probably boil away within a second.

but is this meteor stupid?

it is a big rock. it can not count to ten, or name all fifty states, or make long term plans or try to explain the universe it witnesses, nor the changes that it goes through. if we gave the meteor an easy test, it will likely fare no better than a paper ball, though it's vastly more cataclysmic in effect. there is a great deal of information in it , like all things, but no thought occurs. and so it travels through space and time with no sensation, with no opinion. until it travels no more.

if we define stupidity as "all things that are not smart" then the quantity of stupidity would definitely outweigh the dangers of this world. all those objects without a thought , moving along a sum of vectors , without agancy or will. of course, so much that posess a will and agency is still dumb beyond compare.

so many things are not intelligent, and yet pose no threat.

but if we narrow our definition of stupidity, does that make a change in the balance?

emm...let me think for a moment...hmmm...

see?

stupidity, therefore requires some thought. or better put, thinking about stupidity requires some thought. the success or failure of the thought, depends greatly upon the thinker and how dumb he is.

is it possible that by writing this, i am further exposing my stupidity, and causing more harm?

if there is thought, how can there be stupidity? isn't a thoughtful entity, supposed to be, by definition free of stupidity?

emm...nó?...hm...

a thoughtful entity may be thoughtful when regarding certain issues that are of importance to it. but it is possible to be totally in posession of at once depth of thought, and on the other hand as oblivious to certain things as the aforementioned meteor.

we can, perhaps try to establish stupidity as having a potential to know something, and being able in theory to draw sensible implications while in actuality falling far from that, especially when encountering a need to take some preperation deriving from this implication..

fail fail fail..

what then, of dangers we know not a solution to, and yet we could theoretically overcome them?

can't we cure cancer, given enough scientific knowledge gained? are we stupid in that we are still dying by the millions from uncured ilnesses, or from events that we were not sensible enough to anticipate scientifically? is our mortality, or scarcity, insecurity, or inequality just proof that we are total idiots?

well, collectively we are rather pathetic. it doesn't look good at all..

but stupidity needs to be something more representing of an individual shortcoming. a society may fail to avert certain disasters, and the pressures it exacts upon individuals. but it is some individuals that make observable mistakes while others do not.

if we put it like that, stupidity sounds rather limited in scope, and it seems to be only really felt, in the event of a danger. as that we can cite occasions when dangers appeared and individuals were able to adapt, or respond in time. we can tentatively say that stupidity is not equal in quantity to the dangers of the world, being less in number.

here's another problem with this question;

if stupidity is a question of comaparison (to dangers, and to other possible charachteristics (inanimate-cataclismic, obtuse, intelligent, omnicient, even big and small..), than how about dangers? aren't dangers just as subjective? an ant will see my poorly washed snickers with trepidation, while i will look similarly at any meeting with dentists or medical professionals? are cellestial bodies ever in danger if they are non thinking entities?

maybe there is a direct inverse proportion between the number or magnitude of dangers an object/entity is CAPABLE of seeing/anticipating/reacting to and the actual dangers that that entity is threatened by. an intelligent being will see millions of dangers while an ant will not anticipate anything. who will be in greater danger actually?

the more-the less...

wait... is that how things really work?!

oh yeah...IT DOESNT. it is true that you can have different levels of awarness to dangers and threats, depending on intelligence. but the dangers you will face will not be proportionally greater or lesser.

in fact, there are times when actions people take to avert disaster, caused unintended consequences, resulting in catastrophe that is even more epic.

then again, you may argue that there are no true unintended consequances, only stupidly-conceived actions.

every war has a loser. it is therefore possible to assert that all wars have at least one stupid actor? oh..those chessmasters of history, maybe better to get a 'fresher in checkers...

i think i can't form an ultimate answer to this question. there is great unnecessary risks, natural disasters, and hidden details that prevent people from living a good life, because of all the dangers they bring. conversly, there are dangers that are so total, and all encompassing, that truly dwarf any possible avoidance we can develop. it's over our heads in a big way.

it is therefore stupid and possibly dangerous to continue. better to close my eyes, dig a nice hole in the sand and bury my head...