Remove the warning labels. A simple, elegant approach to elevating overall human consciousness and accelerating the evolutionary process.
One of my grandsons proposed this notion during a dinner table conversation on the state of things in general, which is a topic of some interest to him.
The notice on chain saws: do not try to stop this machine using your bare hands or genitals.
Attractive as this image may be, there are problems. There are the people who don’t read the labels anyhow. And the ones for whom Warnings do not register.
Was a time in America when the cigarette manufacturers ran commercial ads on the television, product endorsements for Camels and Luck Strike with doctors saying how smooth the smoke was. I am not making this up.
Then came the righteous who actually believed that banning the tobacco gang from advertising would fix everything and, indeed, it probably helped avert consumption of a lot of cigarettes, which we can pretty much agree is a good thing.
But now, saved from the predations of that particular plant, the television audience is favored with a tidal wave of drugs, legal and backed by the pharma boys, the biggest drug pushers in the world.
There’s a drug available for women which simplifies their contraception regimen. No more taking the pill all the time and remembering and using one of those little wheels, no. The new product is taken only once a month. What could be better?
The lilting background music, the woman depicted smiling, living a carefree life, and the hard-to-hear, fast-talking voiceunder which mentions the possibility that the drug would cause blood clots, heart disease, organ failures.. Don’t know about you, but that sounds a lot worse to me than “dry mouth.”
Legal. And because it’s legal, there are lots of people who figure, hey, it must be okay; otherwise, my government wouldn’t let them sell it. Perhaps it’s better if we leave the labels on. There are those who won’t read them anyhow, and there are those among us who know better than to trust them entirely. If the ad is compelling and the voice soft and reassuring and the music pacific, I’m gonna ask my doctor about it.
And the doctors, asked by enough patients, begin supplying the drug because, hey, people want it, and there are the warning labels, and the pharma people dropped off the free samples...
In one of my former lives, I had the occasion to give a short campaign speech to a group of ‘liberal’ movers-and-shakers in a home in the Mill Valley hills, which, if you know Marin County, explains the situation. In answer to a standard question, I alarmed the attendees by saying that most federal regulatory agencies –– the ones founded with the idea that somebody had to keep tabs on the corporate thugs who ran things –– ought to be abolished. I’m not sure whether I really believed that at the time. Probably I sort of believed it, which is where I’m at thirty years later. My reasoning was this: any structure you want to create to regulate stuff will be inevitably corrupted by the people it’s supposed to regulate. When this happens, we get the worst of both worlds: the population gets poisoned six-ways-come-sundown and doesn’t even know it. We think the Food and Drug Administration will cover us around the stuff we ingest, inject, or otherwise use on or in our bodies, and meanwhile those babies are having sex with Eli Lilly and Merck.
Everything is now trending toward ‘natural’ and ‘green’, and is generally neither. Just words to sell things, and meanwhile everywhere you want to look it’s like the Fed guarding the bankers.
In that sense, maybe there’s a larger benefit to removing the warning labels than the likely removal of a few more Sarah Palin voters from the rolls. People might, against our wills, be forced to take better responsibility for what we believe. Lazily trusting the guardians of our public health has gotten us into this mess in the first place. It is pure folly to expect them to help us out of the hole.
And meanwhile, as conversations with my grandsons confirms, the human family has reached one of the most revolutionary times in all of history. The radical alteration of the form of the mechanism of communication has implications we cannot even begin to imagine at this point.
The planet may be seen as kind of “earth-human brain”, its consciousness held back by the relative rudimentary means by which one earth-human brain cell speaks with another, and so on. Hell, we didn’t even locate literacy as a general premise until fairly recently (and in some places in America, evidently, it’s still missing). The internet lights up that “earth-human brain” like suddenly plugging-in the biggest Macy’s Christmas tree of all time. Whhhhaaaaaaaammmm!
Basically, I’m betting on evolution. For some reason best known to a laughing God, the Law of Unintended Consequences keeps us alive and fighting back. It was the Pentagon which invented the internet; now they’re trying desperately to figure out how to control it, censor it, and spy on everyone who uses it. It was the Pentagon which began using LSD-25 in mind-control experiments that, I think I can safely say, backfired all over the place.
Those who would destroy people for their sick purposes, who cannot be entrusted with the stewardship of the planet and yet control it, have seemingly every power at their disposal. They have the guns and the money, and they own the networks and the newspapers. And yet...
They don’t know what to do about the internet and instant communication. They are terrified that all of the deepest, ugliest secrets will escape, and they are right.
In the early 1970s, a guy who worked at RAND, a golden boy of the Defense Department named Daniel Ellsberg, made an illicit copy of a study he had worked on, later known as the Pentagon Papers, and tried to get someone to make them public. Senators wouldn’t touch it: it was classified secret. Regardless of how horrible the crimes it might reveal, perhaps because of that, it was “Secret” and could not be seen by the American people.
The New York Times, after much waffling, decided to publish it, an act I feel sure that paper would not engage in today, but that’s not the point. There was an attempt to get the Supreme Court to enjoin its publication. And its publication helped turn the public against the war against Viet Nam.
Today, Daniel Ellsberg would not have to take the Pentagon Papers to any Senator. Thank God; there are so few these days worth a bucket of warm piss, to paraphrase the late John Nance Garner about the vice presidency. No. And he wouldn’t have to plead with the Times or any other media whore.
He’d post it on the internet. Game fucking over.
Federal government outlaws free speech except in “free speech zones”, and it’s too late. The world’s a free speech zone now. They’ll try to stop it. But they might have their hands full.